Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout319 CARNATION V1202FILE* 319 Carnation V1202 RESIDENTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS Tel/:phone: (7141 644-3200 1 Plan Check No: 4By:Genia Garcia, Associate Planner By:Christy Teague, Associate Planner ysMare Mvers Associate Planne By: Date: 11.28 •1S Address: -31ai Carp--,Ic'1 AVe* &t, Districting Map No. I,:?- Land Use Element Page No.,(2G) (1413) Corrections Required: t JJG Legal Description: Lot / Block P-1 Section Tract Verify legal description with Public Works �( c covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the ttacchied- �QJ•� document and return to me. 1�, "" 1'-}-� �J(�.f/ Lot Size p� lV,,/ =�ieQ Y""""'w„` (5-� {i";; sj.,,2.: <� 1394 yl�y Zone M t� L l i S� l� ^Q� a-M2- No. of Units Allowed Sri sEeaoy Proposed ( tTt Maximum cJ _. • Buildable Area 1140 � �„ot Cove�a Tga - T vs*ctural Area ) )pn one level x buildable area. ropos�d ru'ctural=� a: 'S`ILj6 KRI& S• `t<- x build le area. tissue overlayowe culations v n pro os are fo tage. Open Space Area 1-(o(17 cu. (Volume of space e 4 o u le width x height limit x six). This area must at least ' t in ct o ' 61x 6'), and open on at least two si one side on nless otherwise specified in Zoning Code. prig "'t _,1f / / j )� 1 �l -Z Reguired Setbacks Front 0 CW14t rv11 (� I aY Rt o' Rb Side I0� CctM. I �' tY QaD I 9 Left Side 10 l7 i Note: The following may not be permitted t r c i to required..setbaaX: Balconies Fireplaces Dks Bay/Garden Windows �rp- - �p��'��e Other a� marks: W+Z"M•«- C��"'c�`• c��•kt=29�• .V .. .� aM .44—sz1 r. Lat=r AA L 1. Provide floor plan(s), fully dimensioned, showing all room uses. E(/ plot plan, fully dimensioned, 2lY`ov�i ff showing: _ 1 c ion of all buildings, and distance to property lines. distance from face of curb to front property line (verify with Public Works.)/"""\ footprints (if N 1( p ojections( firep s,Laywindows), label distances) toPL s)distance between buildin :av� Sa�- % _,�Height Limitation A� Measured from natural grade to mid -point of roof. Code allows an additional 5'0" to the peak of the ridge height. /2� ow point 2 8 Allowable ridgeheight33 Di n ion all elevations from natural grade to: _ abel natural grade and finished grade on all elevations.;1, MRA l -YL ti- May be in Flood Hazard Area. Check with Building Department for minimum finish floor elevations. Remarks: Required Parking: clear inside minimum dimension 9'-4" x 19' single space 17'-6" x 19' two spaces 8' x 16' third/fourth apace(o) Label clear inside dimensions of provided parking spaces Is demolition proposed? V(�f.cm_y of units to be {{demolished } to Contributiod 13857•=-Q Am- A7(- A;j't.A' San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee `7v a- Park Dedication as iched; e� arY-apirrsYtu. n+ es nd attached] cerpt of minutes and Condit n into the blueline drawi: or-"Irr' approval letter into the blueline drawings Modifications Committee: Indicate Approval No. on Plans Modification required for Planning Commission/City Council: Use Permit: No. Variance: No.71TO Resubdivision/Tract: No. Site Plan Review: No. Amendment: No. Other blic W�rke:_ P W� h POV-1 E ement Encroachment Permit (" , Y division Engineer roffic Engineer T Approval o£ Landscaped .rWw.Significant Links Plane I �ZWte O rnvuy �, nvsawav Categorical Exclusion No. (C.E.O.) Effective Date (Note: Building permits may be issued 10 days following issuance of C.E.O.) 42proval In Concept (AIC) No. ( te: File a sets of plans: site, floor, and elevations) Wa er ,*+. Effective Date .coastal DbvelopmUnt Permit No. Effective Date i mney (and chimney cape etc.) heights permitted only as required by U.B.C. or manufactu er.speci•'fi�cat, one plus additional 12" maximum for cap/spark arryetor. 7�'~ ON PLANS: Pools, spas, walls, fences, patio covers and other standing structures require separate reviews and permits. 5. Association Approval (Advisory). Issuance of a Building Permit by the City does not relieve applicant of legal requirement to observe covenants, condi- tions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association approval of plans. NOTE; it is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding your application, please contact me at (714) 644-3200. FORMSVES-ZON.COR Rev. 2/94 i © litz f-4Zc--," e—Az?c /Ui ism 57 ,Vo t3 j, S F P**� �je, 10-76a •9S 31 q CQ2Vlafr'o " STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gommor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Page 1 of 3 SOUTH COAST AREA Date: 9-2-96 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 330 P.O. SOX 1450 Permit No. 5-95-297 LONG !EACH, CA 908024416 (310) 590.5071 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT On 12 April 1996 , the California Coastal Commission granted to this permit subject to the attached Standard and Special conditions, for development consisting of: construction of a new 3,904 square foot four level single—family residence, 33 feet above grade, with an attached two car garage and roof deck, stepped down a vacant steep slope lot. Retaining walls and landscaping are proposed within the Bayside Drive right—of—way at the base of the slope. more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices. The development is within the coastal zone in 319 Carnation Avenue. Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by RECEIVED BY 3LANNING DEPARTMENT `ITY 00 NEWPORT BEACH SEP 0 51996 7 1819,11%121112131415 6 TN MEM PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director County .at I.� Kim .. The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which states in pertinent part, that: "A public entity is not liable for injury caused by the issuance. . . of any permit. . ." applies to the issuance of this permit. IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13158(a). Date Signature of Permittee 4' COMMISSIONERS CITY OF 14EWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 9. That the valet drop-off and pick-up area shall be limited to t low curb "delivery zone." 10. That th applicant shall obtain the approval the Coastal Commissio rior to the issuance of any buildi permits or the use of the expand portion of the restaurant. 11. That the Planning .ssion ma dd to or modify conditions of approval to this use pe it, or commend to the City Council the revocation of this use p it, upon a determination that the operation which is the s sect this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the he h, safety, ce, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the co unity. 12. That this a Permit shall expire unless exerci d within 24 months from t date of approval as specified in Section 80.090A of the Ne ort Beach Municipal Code. Variance No 1202 (Continued Public Hearing) Agenda No. 4 Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on WR (2178) District which exceeds the v 1202 property located in the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed Approv development provides the required amount of open space, but the The location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as.to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right - or -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said development also proposes to extend up to 12 feet with portions of the revised construction beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, and an additional 16f inches with a roof overhang; and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into -23- Itecr ed , , COMMISSIONERS MINUTES T o, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T,,.,o 90 100; ROLL CALL INDEX said abandoned right-of-way. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacateporton of Carnao n Avenue and will measure 4 feet above d iti natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. LOCATION: A portion of Block "D", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR(2178) APPLICANT: Robert Losey, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to photographs that were taken to indicate that views had been opened up as a result of the revisions to the original plan. Commissioner Brown addressed the letter from Mr. Toe �DiPaola dated June 20, 1995. In response to the letter, Commissioner Brown explained that as he was walking to his automobile in the parking lot after he excused himself from an item that was scheduled prior to the subject vari ance as COMMISSIONERS 9LL�9�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX attempt to reach compromises when neighbors are impacted and for those purposes the Commissioners speak to the applicant and to the neighbors. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there is no conflict. The communications were as described and were proper. There would be no reason for the Commissioners to excuse themselves from voting on this matter on the basis of the communications. Acting Chairman Ridgeway pointed out that he previously met with many of the opposing neighbors and with the applicant. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman -Ridgeway, Mr. Hewicker replied that no changes were made to the project since the applicant submitted plans for the June 8, 1995, Planning Commission meeting that was continued to the subject public hearing. The continued public hearing was reopened, and Mr. Robert Losey, 424 Goldenrod Avenue, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Losey addressed the possibility of encroaching into the easement, and the possibility of mitigating Mr. Billings view as previously suggested by the Planning Commission. In reference to the encroachment he said there was too much potential for his family to be sued and the City could experience litigation. Mr. Losey distributed a photograph taken of the proposed roof line from Mr. Billings' second floor, he pointed out that one section of the roof was lowered up to 4-1/2 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Losey explained that a civil engineer and surveyor determined the location to install the nine story poles. The story poles show top of height of maximum allowable buildable for each location, and then one foot down from the top. Shootings showed the height of the structure as it affected the poles and as it affected Mr. Phalen's and Mr. Billings' property. Pomeroy In response to questions posed by Commissioner and Commissioner Brown, Mr. Losey described the revisions that were made to reduce the roofline. Mr. Hewicker stated that the applicant also moved the lower floor of the elevation along Bayside Drive. -25- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 9�'14 �9 )11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, W. Losey explained that the photographs indicate where the structure could be built if it were constructed at the 10 foot setback on Bayside Drive, and the view impact from Bayside Drive. Commissioner Adams determined that the photographs indicate that the proposed structure appears to have a significantly less impact than if the structure would be built within the existing entitled envelope. In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr. Losey explained that the red- line drawn on the plan indicates the maximum allowable buildable based on current zoning, and the green line indicates the structure. Mr. Eric Mossman, architect for the applicant, 326 North Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. W. Mossman said that the drawing submitted by the engineer would determine the scale and size of the building. Commissioner Brown said that the photographs indicate that the proposed roof has approximately 1-1/2 feet of error before it enters into the near foreground bay view. Mr. E. Baez, 2518 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to read a letter from Mr. Gaston Ortiz, 2516 and 2518 Bayside Drive stating his opposition to the variance. Mr. Baez concurred with Mr. Ortiz' letter that the variance would impact the views from Bayside Drive. Mr. Rick Smirl, 401 Fernleaf Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Smid opposed Mr. Losey's comments regarding the easement, and the proposed project. Acting Chairman Ridgeway stated that the Public Works Department pulled the recorded documents that are related to Carnation Avenue from Seaview Avenue to Bayside Drive. He personally contacted two attorneys at First American Title Co. to discuss conceptually what could be accomplished. There are recorded easements for the benefit of properties on Carnation Avenue. Camation Avenue from Seaview Avenue to Bayside Drive is a private street, and all of the easements that are recorded are for the benefit of the houses. Don Webb, -26- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES T..«e 77 1000 ROLL CALL e INDEX Public Works Director, explained that the upper area of Corona del Mar drains to the site, and the 10 inch sewer line runs down Carnation Street, down the slope, into Bayside Drive. At the top of the slope the sewer line is roughly 26 feet in the ground, and it was installed and reworked in 1962. There is a 6 foot wide easement, and the City does not want to have structures closer than the existing easement line on the basis that if repair work would be necessary to the be, a 26 foot trench could take more horizontal space than 6 feet. Should a structure encroach five to ten feet into the area it would be necessary for the foundation to be constructed to such a depth to allow the City to excavate to get to the sewer line. The sewer line serves several thousand houses. Mr. Smirl, Acting Chairman Ridgeway, and Mr. Webb discussed Mr. Smirl's concerns regarding the easement. Mr. Joe DiPaola, attorney, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Mr. Smirl, 401 Fernleaf Avenue. In response to a request for clarification, Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Mr. DiPaola's letters dated June 9, 1995, and June 20, 1995, are part of the official record. Mr. DiPaola requested that the Planning Commission identify themselves if they had previous meetings with the applicant or the opposition. Acting Chairman Ridgeway stated that Ms. Clauson previously stated that any communication with any of the interested parties would be proper. In reference to Mr. DiPaola's letter dated June 20, 1995, he stated that the applicant should have known of the setback restrictions when he purchased the property. For the record, Mr. DiPaola read from California Real Estate Law and Practice, Vol. 8, Zoning and Land Use Control, that hardships that are self-induced cannot legally justify the granting of a variance. For example, a person who buys property or obtains an option to buy property with the anticipation of obtaining a variance, cannot obtain a variance based on the hardship that would result from the failure to obtain the variance. Similarly, an applicant cannot rely on the hardship cause when his/her sale of part of the subject property is left too small a parcel for the desired use. W. DiPaola addressed his concerns regarding the easement and the building envelope. -27- COMMISSIONERS i\Nsom CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES nn ,nAr ROLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Lila Crespin, 2600 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her opposition to the variance because it would block their view, depreciate the value of their property, and it would reduce the Crespins retirement income. In response to questions posed by Mrs. Crespin, Mr. Hewicker explained that there are regulations governing the locations and height of plantings within the front yard setbacks. He said that he was not aware of restrictions of tree height or the locations that trees could be planted on Bayside Drive. Mr. Hewicker said that the slopes generally have ground covers and shrubbery to hold the earth. Mr. in Hewicker pointed out that if trees would be planted on Bayside Drive the public right-of-way that it would require an Encroachment Permit from the City Council. Mr. Ross Billings, 314 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Billings stated that Mr. Losey removed the stairway but it did not constitute a six foot roof reduction. Mr. Billings addressed his concerns regarding the easement, and the Carnation Avenue right-of-way. Mr. Bill Phelan, 317 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Phelan addressed the letter from W. J. E. Garrett, 313 Carnation Avenue, dated June 21, 1995, to the Planning Commission. He expressed his concerns regarding the setbacks; the height of the structure, and the abandoned easement. Mr. Kent Moore, 2500 and 2502 Ocean Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. He referred to his letter dated June 2, 1995, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Moore discussed the similarities of the proposed project to the Quandt project at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Ms. Bea LaForce, 311 Carnation Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. LaForce stated that Mr. Tun Garrett's letters dated June 8 and 21, 1995, explain his objections to the proposed project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Losey that the reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Losey replied roof height had been reduced by four feet. Acting Chairman Ridgeway -28- COMMISSIONERS GF1'�9,GTo 9 <y9�q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Tnnu 00 1 QQ9 ROLL CALL INDEX asked Mr. Losey if the roof line of the main structure had- been lowered whereby Mr. Losey replied that the roof line had not been lowered. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the City has a precedent to grant variances to property owners where unusual circumstances exist. There are private views that are being blocked by the subject structure, and the neighbors are opposing the project because their views would be blocked. The Planning Commission considers public views and not private views. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker addressed the encroachment into the setback along Carnation Avenue easement, and the fact that it would have a tendency to block a view if a person would be standing at the street end on Carnation Avenue and looking across Bayside Drive at Begonia Park. Staff previously suggested some modification in the structure as it would affect the public view from the end of Carnation Avenue. It is only public for the Carnation Avenue residents and the visitors to Carnation Avenue. Typically when public view is addressed, it is when a person is standing on a public right-of-way. He stated that W. Bob Burnham, City Attorney, previously indicated that the authority of the Planning Commission would be to address the issue of private view to the extent that a structure could diminish the value of properties in the immediate area and to the extent that it may contribute to a further decline in the value of the property and, therefore, deteriorate the neighborhood. Commissioner Di Sano stated that if Mr. Losey would build to the limit to his true property rights that would be much more than what he is asking for in the variance. There are instances when variances are necessary, and the Planning Commission is required to make a finding that a variance is allowed. Commissioner Di Sano opined that the subject variance is allowable. Commissioner Adams stated that the residents on Bayside Drive should be aware that W. Losey is proposing a structure that is less of a view -29- tM sw Mo Ay No Ab on Ay Ab 14) COMMISSIONERS 9�'°M111RO-0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ...__nn innc ROLL CALL e INDEX impairment than what he is entitled to build. He determined that the variance would not have anything to do with an increase of view impairment in the corridor. The public view impairment would be minor at the end of Carnation Avenue, and there was not significant testimony regarding the loss of public view. Commissioner Brown stated that to enter into a 26 foot sewer line would require a surface area of approximately 50 to 55 feet wide. There were modifications made; however, suggestions were made that could have improved the project, i.e.: the -mass of the house as it -approaches the side yard of Mr. Phelan, and the guest room on top of the garage. He said that if the guest room would be reduced the structure would remain at approximately 3,400 square feet, or twice the buildable area. He suggested that if the guest room would be deleted above the garage that it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the aforementioned photographs reflect a compelling argument that the house could be constructed to impair more views and the neighbors would be more concerned if the structure would be built within the building envelopes. * Motion was made•to approve Variance No. 1202 subject to the findings :ion and conditions in Exhibit "A". DstitutB Substitute motion was made and voted on to approve Variance No. 1202 tion subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", and an added as * condition to eliminate the guest suite on top of the garage. SUBSTITUTE as * * * * MOTION FAILED. sent .grnab 4o i n Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. as sent * FINDINGS: s I. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, -30- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots in Corona del Mar. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises-40 %-of the subject property. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the irregularly shaped lot has less buildable area than other lots in Corona del Mar, since the site has two front yard setbacks and two rear yard setbacks which are more restrictive than other lots on the same block. 5. That the proposed development is designed to minimize the alterations of natural landforms along the bluff. 6. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. -31- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 9\A cis, oc�992�F�9O�0 C \� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the open space location requirement of the MFR District. 9. That the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue, and into the required rear yard setbacks will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such -proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City; and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, inasmuch as the subject property is encumbered by unusual setback requirements and an abandoned right-of-way which is not included in the buildable area of the site. CONDITIONS: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and section, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed structure shall be limited to a maximum of 3,925± square feet of gross floor area (excluding 400 square feet for the two car garage). 3. That the proposed first floor balcony and the basement level family room shall be redesigned so as to maintain a 10 foot 6 inch setback from the Bayside Drive right-of-way. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 9a1 � 1� o, q <<`O O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'nn3 ROLL CALL r��, 2 INDEX improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That an additional 9 feet of easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the public along the Carnation Avenue frontage contiguous with the existing 6 foot sewer easement. This easement is necessary to provide for future maintenance of the existing sewer main. That there shall be no structural encroachments into the proposed easement unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 7. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That the Carnation Avenue street end be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement and that a standard street end guard rail be constructed to protect the motoring public and pedestrians with the design to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 10. That the stability of the slope along Bayside Drive and within the Bayside Drive right-of-way be stabilized in conformance with the recommendations of a Geological report and to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. That the geological report that determines areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits for construction or grading. 11. That the proposed retaining wall along Bayside Drive be redesigned as two (2) walls, one located approximately 4 feet behind existing sidewalk and the other wall located within the project property lines with a maximum slope of 2:1 behind each wall. The wall design shall be approved by the Public Works -33- COMMISSIONERS 9<P<?29 y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES r.. -111) inoc ROLL CALL INDEX Department. That an Encroachment Agreement be executed by the owner for maintenance of the wall located in the public right-of-way and to hold the City harmless form any liability associated with the existence of the wall. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. That the Encroachment Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 12. That the owner execute a hold harmless agreement on the slopes within the Bayside Drive right-of-way. The agreement shall hold the City harmless from any existing or future slope failures. The form and content of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. That the Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 13. That the slope along the Bayside Drive frontage be landscaped as approved by the Public Works Department, the City Grading Engineer and the General Services Department. 14. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement. plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 15. That a drainage study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. That the roof and site drainage be conveyed to Carnation Avenue or Bayside Drive in a manner approved by the City Grading Engineer and the Public Works Department. 16. That the location of the sewer lateral connection to the public sewer system be reviewed and approved by the Utilities department prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. 17. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. -34- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 18. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 19. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical'. 20. That driveway slopes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 21. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 22. That the grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential, impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 23. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 24. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 25. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. -35- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 26. A 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. ,ion mce E ---� ?MZit-w(mo why eep ffl evffA/k. N74 c�- Ar=r-A-vSle 311-djr FtP°—!� t4ru'A-Y 17 D1 fry -rives P/k",Ms vAove'DP p Er P� ` pry s t(S&F- Amy fW 1 4k -Ole �i�<iIJC Ni 1: s CA-4a )�, (', r,41-4t/f(O - T TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting June 8. 1995 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department Variance No. 1202 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed development provides the required, amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -or -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach 16 inches± with a roof overhang, and three retaming walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into said 4bandoned right-of-way., The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. LOCATION. A portion of Block "D", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated),, located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona,delMar. ZONE: MFR (2178) APPLICANT: Robert S. Losey, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant g5 TO: Planning Commission -2. AdditionalBack�Mund i At its meeting of May 18, 1995, the Planning Commission continued this item to its meeting of June 8, 1995, so as to allow the applicant to meet with the immediately affected neighbors in hopes of reaching a compromise and a possible redesign of the -structure. The applicant subsequently met with neighbors and prepared a redesign of the proposed structure. The applicant has submitted the attached letter describing his attempts to resolve the differences with the neighbors. The Commission also suggested that the applicant discuss with the Public Works Department the redesigning of the structure onto the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. It was determined that there may be a legal problem to encroach onto said easement. A draft copy of the Planning Commission minutes of that meeting are included in the Commission's agenda packet. Analysis The applicant has redesigned the project and is proposing to construct a 3,925 sq.ft. single family dwelling and two garage spaces on the subject property. The plans are essentially the same as previously submitted on May 18, 1995, with the exception of a roof change and an increased setback on Bayside Drive which will apply to the family room and the balcony. The applicant has proposed to lower the height of a portion of the building at the stairway which is the primary access to all levels of the structure. This is a critical view obstruction to Mr. Billing's existing view. The attached copy of a portion of the Carnation Avenue elevation shows the reduction of the building silohuette due to the new roof configuration. As previously noted, the structure is considerably lower than allowed in the MFR District with regard to the height of the peak of the ridge. The applicant is of the opinion that the proposed structure impacts bay views from Bayside Drive substantially less than a house constructed within the allowable height limitations of the 28 Foot Height Limitation District which applies to the subject property. Photographs have been submitted by the applicant which will be available for the Commission's information at the hearing. The design of the structure as presented on May 19, 1995,'sh6wed that the first floor balcony was to be set back an additional 6 inches which will maintained: The current design, additionally increases the setback of the basement level family room 6 inches, which will create an overall setback of 10 feet 6 inches from Bayside Drive. The applicant has erected additional calibrated story poles which depict the outline of the proposed structure and poles which show the height of the allowable 28 foot Height Limitation Zone as applies to the subject property. The applicant has submitted the attached Pole Map information with regard to the location and height of the story poles. stp TO: Planning Commission -3. Specific Findings Should the planning, Commission desire to approve this application as requested by the applicant, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" (Revised) are suggested. Should the Commission desire to approve this application but limit the encroachments into the front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue, the additional Condition of Approval No. 32,specified in the staff report of May 18, 1995, should be incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A'. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny this application in its entirety, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JMM D. HEWICIMR, Director By w' '.' avier S. Garcia uiPL Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" (Revised) Exhibit "B" Information from Applicant with Attachments (Activity Since Last Hearing, dated June 5, 1995) Plot Plan Showing 6 Inch Reduction at Bayside Drive Side of Property Portion of Carnation Avenue Elevation Pole Map Additional Letters of Opposition Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 18, 1995 with attachments Revised Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations 4 • JAY- VAR\V1202-DMW TO: Planning Commission -4. EXHIBIT "A' (REVISED) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 1202 (As Submitted by Applicant) FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots in Corona del Mar. 2. That. the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises 40 % of the subject property. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the irregularly shaped lot has less buildable area than other lots in Corona del Mar, since the site has two front yard setbacks and two rear yard setbacks which are more restrictive than other lots on the same block. 5. That the proposed development is designed to minimize the alterations of natural landfonns along the bluff.- 6. That the design of ft proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the open space location requirement of the MFR District. 9. That the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue, and into the required rear yard setbacks will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or TO: Planning Commission -5. injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City; and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, inasmuch as the subject property is encumbered by unusual setback requirements and an abandoned right-of-way which is not included in the buildable area of the site. 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and section, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed structure shall be limited to a maximum of 3,925t square feet of gross floor area (excluding 400 square feet for the two car garage). That the proposed first floor balcony and the basement level family room shall be redesigned so as to maintain a 10 foot 6 inch setback from the Bayside Drive right-of-way. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That an additional 9 feet of easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the public along the Carnation Avenue frontage contiguous with the existing 6 foot sewer easement. This easement is necessary to provide for future maintenance of the existing sewer main. That there shall be no structural encroachments into the proposed easement unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. t S. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That the Carnation Avenue street end be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement and that a standard' street end guard rail be constructed to protect the motoring public and pedestrians with the design to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 10. That the stability of the slope along Bayside Drive and, within the Bayside Drive right-of- way be stabilized in conformance with the recommendations of a Geological report and to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. That the geological report.that detennines areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be . submitted prior to issuance of any building permits for construction or grading. a9 TO: Planning Commission -6. 11. That the proposed retaining wall along Bayside Drive be redesigned as two (2) walls, one located approximately 4 feet behind existing sidewalk and the other wall located within the project property lines with a maximum slope of 2:1 behind each wall. The wall design shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That an Encroachment Agreement be executed by the owner for maintenance of the wall located in the public right-of-way and to hold the City harmless form any liability associated with the existence of the wall. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. That the Encroachment Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 12. That the owner execute a hold harmless agreement on the slopes within the Bayside Drive right-of-way. The agreement shall hold the City harmless from any existing or future slope failures. The form and content of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. That the Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 13. That the slope along the Bayside Drive frontage be landscaped as approved by the Public Works Department, the City Grading Engineer and the General Services Department. 14. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 15. That a drainage study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. That the roof and site drainage be conveyed to Carnation Avenue or Bayside Drive in a manner approved by the City Grading Engineer and the Public Works Department. 16. That the location of the sewer lateral connection to the public sewer system be reviewed and approved by the Utilities department prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. 17. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 19. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 19. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 20. That driveway slopes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. M TO: Planning Commission -7. 21. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building Public Works and Planning Departments. 22. That the grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 23. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 24. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 25. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 26. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 27. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 28. That any proposed fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio and shall be subject to further review 15y the City Grading Engineer. 29. That any planned slope irrigation shall be controlled by an automatic system control device with an override keyed to continuous soil moisture measurement devices. The preparation and planting of the site slopes shall be designed by an experienced landscape planner, and all slopes shall be planted upon their completion and all planting must be maintained in growing condition for at least two years or until accepted by the Building Official. 30. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building or grading pernits. 31. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. al TO: Planning Commission -8. EXHIBIT "B° FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 1202 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and/or uses on the other lots in the area which justify exceeding the allowable buildable area and the location requirement of open space. 2. That the subject property maintains sufficient buildable area so as to permit the construction of an adequate home within the required front and rear yard setbacks. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the proposed encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City; and further that the proposed with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. �1 6-65-1995 7:54AM FROM xSOURCE DATA PRODUCTS 714 851 59AJ, P. 2 SOURCE DATA PRODUCTS coupe Dan Pmdum. Inc. 19;IKi Fm chu Suite 280 Irvine. CA 92715 Phnne (714) 651.1970 Ouuide Cl (111w1333.2669 FAX (714) 851-3911 June 5, 1995 To: Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Fr: Bob & Linda Losey 424 Goldenrod Ave. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 subject: Variance No: 1202 Summary: The roof of proposed Losey Residence has been redesigned to accommodate bay view for Billings from Billings' second floor. New colored and calibrated story doles were installed with help from civil engineer to verify location and height to more view accurately assess propose impact. Although private views will be lost as a consequence of this proposed structure; submitted photographs of the story poles demonstrate that the impact of the proposed structure is LESS than the current buildable allowable.without a variance. . Activities since last hearing: Since the last Public Hearing of May 18, 1995, I understood the•Commission's directive to -explore the prospect of encroaching further into the ingress/egress easement that runs through my property. On the morning of May 19, 1995, I met with Mr- Richard Hoffstadt, P.E. of the Public Works Department of the City of Newport Beadh;' ,At that meeting, Mr. Hoffstadt explained that Public Works would consider my proposed home encroaching as much as 13 feet into the easement. However, Mr. Hoffstadt said that there was also the legal issue if I could encroach into the easement and that this had to be researched. I provided' -my attorney with the title documents from my title insurance company. After researching this issue, my attorney explained to me that I could not legally have my residence encroach in the easement. a5 G—GS-1995 7:54AM FRrf)SOURCE DATA PRODUCTS 714 651fao�d1 P. a On June 1, 19954 I called Be LaForce, Bill Phelan, and John Garrett to request support for my project. Mr. Garrett returned my call and explained he would only support my project subject to certain conditions, one of Which included that my proposed home encroach in the ingress/egress, easement. Per Mr. Garrett's request, I faxed to him my plans.for his review. On June'2, 1995, I called Be Laforce and Bill Phelan again to request support for my variance. Mr. Phelan explained he would only support my variance provided' subject to certain conditions which included strict adherence to the current i.o foot setbacks from his property and encroachment in the ingress/egress easement. It was my interpretation that the conditions from Mr. Phelan and Mr. Garrett were conflicting for support of my variance by encroaching into the easement. Be LaForce did not return my calls. In parallel, my architect and I also explored redesigning the roof to lessen the impact of my residence on the Billings. New colored ,and calibrated story poles were installed with the assistance of a civil engineer to verify location and height. Professional photograph were used to assist Eric Mossman to redesign the roof to accommodate the Billings bay view from -the second floor (please see photographs). I reviewed these new changes with Mr. Billings on June 2, 1995. It is my interpretation that he was generally pleased that much of his view is preserved with the new roof design. Lastly, we contacted Mr: Smirl.to gain access to his property to asse6s'the"impact of our residence on his view. His attorney notified us that this request was denied. I did notify Mr. Smirl and his attorney that I was extremely busy, that'I was evaluating, their requests and did not plan- to notify them. I also mentioned that I would be available to hear any new, ideas or thoughts they may have. 'To date, neither -has contacted me. 9 `+ 6-05-1995 7:SSA1•t FROM fCE DATA PRODUCTS 714 651 59 am The I-aw Offices Of ice DiFanla, F$4- AARed Estate Lew pradiCO jQjkoL& 7-2652) • P:a. l26Yia t t s!� Xorrf e . r t cr ►TF 1 �Vit mood V. CA Pou y, spry. c ►s?&la Y ;Ligation and Tramactitlas tom: (as) %4_771t o f to 77 a F+>:: Magig %47423 y n 014 77 Arbitcatioct and hledixtion VtA-MLECOPY; (714) 5LSl•5941 Pi RSONAL: TO BE RFs1D BY ADDRESSEE ONLY May 23. 199S }dt, Robert Losey cfo Soutce Data Products 19700 Fairchild, Suite 2$0 Irvine, CA 92115 R£: tl •,.v rvo. r�us, • ^- Rune g, t995 at 7:30 PM Dear Mr. Lowy: Corona Del. AS you know, I tep teseut William N. strati, wto is the owner of 401 Fernleaf, Mar. CA. ReCendy. Your wife made a request on your behalf £or across to Mr. Smit1's propettY• That teqUe" it denied; however, we stand ready to meet with You to dismss possibio alterauivt options. that might enable you to obtain your variance in a modified gym- Ona suds proposa w21 put forth by Mr. 3,,MgS zt the May 18. 1995 hearing. AS you k f set ProP 1 &Masts that you lower the helgdx of your constriction by ooe story our ilia know. a (north and went) side so as to lessen the obsuirctiou to views, and instead build our irate the Perry' Car cation Street rlgbtof way (eau) side of your pro As you will rrdaU, when 1 suggested that Proposal to you iathe foyer of the Council Chambers during the hearing itself and told you that we would I;% Mr. BitiittYs' eon tkxW e, you told me that you could not compromise in this fashion becartse: (1) it represented e c arehirectnnl fats/expenses to you. which Yorr did not want to spend; and (itBeen —CA ` thou tall to -take � • • :you pion to taYe maximum advantage of your Ict's is `views and property values. Mr. Billings' water views. to the dcuimwt of your narghbors s a n some views. and you a4last your plans comprecnise is the obvious solution: your neighllots) I urge you to reconsider Mr. and give up some views (you trill retain sigttifieant Billings' proposal ---it could potcntuily resolve matters all around. We ado not unraasonabk: web :he concomitant reduction in blight on the ftysidt gide floral the expansion into the right•of way suaesmd by Mr. Billings, we support the Billings plan. 6t: t t BnA S4-£2:-j."W 6-OS-199S 7:96AM FRO.^-OURCE DATA PRODUCTS 714 SS1 rVl is As l Said- we remain availzbiz w tnea with you to discuss theca ��; we would welcome such a mteting. We believe :bat it it is evayone s best unteresu to disatss this bc4ore the continued heating on Lune 8, tom• In the mculime, Pkase do not hesiutc to c0otact tuc at 770-201- 0. S.`�inrx�scl{'Y'�JI�SG--� 1 If..� TiP�rlx ae: tiiil Smirl 6-05-1995 7:56AI.1 FROM SQURCE DATA PRODUCTS 714 851 5941� P_ 6 SOURCE DATA PRODUCTS May 30, 1995 Joe Dipaola The Law Offices of Joe Dipaola 22822 Lake Forest Drive Lake Forest, CA 92630 Dear Joe: Source Diu Prrducis, Inc. 19700 Fairchild sidle 290 Irvine, CA 9271i Phone (714) 951.1970 onnAde CA (800) 335.2669 FAX (NO F31-5941 Thank you for your letter of May 23, 1995. A, you know, I have been away for a week and this is the first opportunity ive had to respond. I ant disappointed that Mr. Smirl denied us access to his property. The request was made to better understand Mr. Smirl's position, a way for to "walk a mile in his moccasins." For the record, we are considering Mr. Billings proposal as one of several considerations. I believe we understand the guidelines of this proposal. I currently have unusually high demands on my time for the next two weeks. Consequently, I am not planning on contacting you or your client other than by this letter. However, if you have new information or suggestions you would like us to consider other what is already been discussed, I am willing to your thoughts.; you have any questions or if I can be of further service. 0 Au�,nan a I, If el C. Wlr D„kn Vk, '" E D FJ Ll lok ohffb'W4L AboF AgEA I)ELETUb I�i'� �r�ll �x HITS OlE9. +� SKOWN I -a' ON GN1R• BLPGK 9TRlP1fi 81.00 /ti jyV.x Au.ewED n P Po� 88.00 V fM'�•• P�oWFA �1'0P to�� 94•00 �� �-" '� ptvx. ,�uaw \ o oi.8 I.De 1 MAx. A�-ww57 01.i5 0 •t0 \ � (q CARNXTfot1 10OL6- MAP 5 D (p�,p° EASEMf�Ji4 EYtcF MASSMAN ,�t,> �Juvs 2, MgrR l 0 :�lllji-4 � BEiaFORCE` 311 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 USA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^ITY OF NFWPORT BEAW JUN - 610095AM PY . 7t8t9t�tut�tit2t3t41516 Nod t+ FirNT S. 2�I00tzra 2502 OCEAN BOULEVARD CORONA DEL MAR. CALIFORNIA 92625 June 2, 1995 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: 1\Lug. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NF%YPORT BEACP AM AN - 51995 PM 718191101HI1211A3141516 I' . I have spoken to several neighbors and reviewed documents concerning the debate over the proposed construction at 319 Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar (Variance 1202). After at. tending your meeting on March 9th and receiving Information from your May i8th meeting, I am still confused with the Commission's position and would, again, like to make a point about a similar situation which took place in the neighborhood some years ago. I am speaking about the Quandt project at 2495 Ocean Blvd., which was later purchased by the McIntosh family. The location is at the bottom of Carnation Ave., also on a bluff face. Some of the same Issues were involved such as view,.downsizing, grading, en- croachments and variances. This particular project took over 10 years before it was fin- ally resolved.- There were meetings with Planning, the City Council, the applicant, many neighbors, architects, lawyers and so on. It became a nightmare for all parties concerned. The bottom line, though, was that the applicant ultimately had to compromise due to the unusual nature of the project and the City's unwillingness to back down on certain key Issues. The matter is well -documented. My question to you commissioners is, "Why Is the Losey.project.so different from the Quandt project?" The voluminous documentation that I've reviewed indicates that Mr. Losey has•been reluct- ant to do much in the way of compromising with the City and neighbors. Neither did Mr. Quandt. It wasn't until the City finally stepped in and said, "Enough is enough" that the .matter was successfully resolved. I now urge your commission to step in and bring this matter to a close as there is ample precedent that exists just two hundred yards down the street. Must there again be possible protracted litigation and acrimony which may go on for years? The neighbors have cooperated in an attempt to accomodate Mr. Losey. Their arguments seem quite sound and appear to be backed up by exisiting ordinances and codes. I certainly would agree with them that the applicant should be able to enjoy his property rights but these many rpodifications which would allow the building of a larger - than -typical house on a smaller than -average lot, affecting many neighboring homeowners, are definitely out of order and should be denied. Very truly yours, 1bv Planning Commission Meeting May 18. 1995 Agenda Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Variance No 1202 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (21 %8) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times - the buildable area of the site. The proposed development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -or -way as established by- Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach 16 inches± with a roof overhang, and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into said abandoned right-of-way. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. LOCATION: A portion of Block "D", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), -located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ' ZONE: MFR (2178) APPLICANT: Robert S. Losey, Corona del Mar OWNER Same as applicant TO: Planning Commission-2. Application This application involves a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -or -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach 16 inches± with a roof overhang, and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into said abandoned right-of-way. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. Variance procedures are outlined in Chapter 20:82, and modification procedures are discussed in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. Additional Background At its meeting of April 6, 1995, the Planning Commission continued this item to its meeting of May 4, 1995, so as to allow the applicant to meet with the immediately affected neighbors in hopes of reaching a compromise and a possible redesign of the structure. The applicant subsequently met with neighbors and prepared a redesign of the proposed structure; however, the revised plans were not available in time to allow staff to review the new plans and to prepare the staff report to the Commission. Therefore, the application was subsequently continued to the meeting of May 18, 1995, so as to allow staff additional time to review the redesign and prepare the report to the Commission. Analysis The applicant has redesigned the project and is now proposing to construct a 3,934 sq.ft. single family dwelling and two garage spaces on the subject property. (It should be noted that the architect's calculations differ from stff scaling of the submitted plans): The applicant has cut back the garage at the first floor level and removed a second floor balcony which was located -on the rear of the property overlooking 311-317 Carnation Avenue southwesterly of the subject property. The applicant has submitted the attached information (labeled "Summary of Compromise and Activity Since April 6, 1995") for the Commission's review. The proposed structure consists of four levels of living area. The basement level consists of two bedrooms, two baths and a family room for a total floor area of 1,327 sq.ft.; the first floor level consists of a main entry, living room, kitchen, powder room, and dining room for a total floor area of 1,234 sq.ft., and an exterior balcony; the second floor level consists of a master bedroom and master bathroom, related closets and storage for a total of 962 sq.ft., and a 419 sq.ft. two car garage; and the third floor level, above the garage, is occupied by a bedroom and a bath for a total of 392 sq.ft. and an 10 sq.ft. exterior balcony area. The following outline sets forth the changes in the major characteristics of the proposed development, as well as the design parameters. lb� TO: Planning Commission -3. Parcel Size (includes the abandoned Carnation Avenue easement which consists of2,332 sq.ft.) Setbacks: Front Carnation Ave. (on Districting Map No. 17) Required 10 ft. (measured .from vacated r.o.w line) 5,560t sq.fi. Proposed Development Varies from 0 feet for the three living levels (with encroachments on the vacated no.w. discussed -below) to 15 ft. to the garage Bayside Drive (on Districting 10 ft. Vanes from 10 ft. to 13 ft. Map No. 17) (original plan was 10 ft. from Bayside Drive at the northwest corner of the building, but the first floor balcony will be redesigned to maintain a 10 ft. 6 in. Setback from Bayside Drive) Rear Side Opposite Carnation Ave. 10 ft. 4 ft. at the main living level and 6 ft. 6 in. to 13 ft. at the garage and the living area above and 4 ft. to 6 ft. at the stair and upper level deck above the garage (original plan was 4 ft. for entire building) Side Opposite Bayside Drive 10 ft. 4 ft. (no change from original 1 plan) Gross Structural Area: 1,710t sq.ft.; 3,934f sq.ft. (original plan was 1.5 times the 4,018t sq.ft.); 3A5f times the buildable area buildable area of the site, of the site (excluding 400 sq. ft. of (excluding 400 garage area as permitted in the sq.ft. garage) WR District) (original plan was 3.52t times buildable area) As shown in the above table and the table in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 6, 1995, the subject project conforms with all aspects, of the MFR District, except for the proposed buildable area and gross square footage, rear yard setbacks, front yard encroachment adjacent to vacated Carnation Avenue, the height of walls within the Carnation Avenue easement area, �b5 1 i 1 TO: Planning Commission-4. and the required location of the required open space as defined by Section 20.19.035 E of the Municipal Code. Proposed Buildable Area As indicated in the above outline, the applicants project includes 3,9341 square feet of gross structural area (the MFR District makes allowance for a credit of 200 sq.ft. for each enclosed, required parking space to be deleted from the allowed square footage), which exceeds the allowable gross structural area by approximately 2,224 f square feet. However, it is the applicants opinion that the required setbacks, the existing abandoned Carnation Avenue IngremSgress Easement and the resulting buildable area are overly restrictive and is therefore requesting approval of a variance so as to permit the construction of the proposed single family dwelling. It should be noted that the proposed redesigned area is 331 sq.ft. larger than that previously approved in conjunction with Variance No. 1178, but slightly smaller than that previously submitted. In previous similar applications, the Planning Commission has approved variances to allow greater gross floor area when it was shown that the proposed project maintained the same ratio of floor area to land area as other typical residential developments in the neighborhood. In this case, a typical 40 ft. x 120 ft. (4,800 sq.ft.), MFR lot with a front yard setback of 10 feet, side yard setbacks of 3 feet, and a 10 foot rear yard setback, will allow a maximum building area of 5,100 sq.ft. Such a lot would maintain a floor area to land area ratio of 1.0625. If the same ratio were permitted on the subject property, the resulting gross floor area would be 5,908f square feet (1.0625 x 5,5%L sq.ft = 5,908t sq.ft.). As indicated in the previous outline, the subject project contains 3,934' square feet which represents a floor area to land area ratio of 0.707, or approximately 1,974t square feet less than the comparable Carnation Avenue residential development located on the same side of Carnation Avenue. As indicated in the above outline, the proposed project complies with the required front yard setback as established by bistricting Map No. 17 for the northerly side of the property (Bayside Drive) but not the required rear yard setbacks or the setback from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. Staff is of the opinion•that the proposed rear yard setbacks are consistent with the setbacks maintained by the neighboring property and that the neighboring project will not be adversely affected by the reduced setbacks Proposed Building Encroachments into Front Yard Setback Adjacent to Abandoned Carnation Avenue As shown on the attached plans, the applicant has proposed no changes in regard to the encroachments into the front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue. Proposed Encroachments Into Carnation Avenue Easement A review of the site plan indicates that a stairway and three new retaining walls will extend out beyond the 10 foot front yard setback area into the 25 foot Carnation Avenue Easement area. These encroachments have not changed from the previous 'submittal. \tb TO: Planning Commission -5. Additional Story Poles Locations The applicant has erected an additional story pole which is located at the intersection of the 10 foot front yard setback line adjacent to Bayside Drive and the 10 foot rear, yard setback line opposite Carnation Avenue. The applicant has submitted the attached information with regard to the location and height of the story poles along with photographs showing the story poles as viewed from selected locations. Proposed Building lieieht The applicant has proposed to lower the height of the proposed building slightly, even though the structure is considerably lower than allowed in the MFR District with regard to the height of the peak of the ridge (see attached photograph from the applicant). Required Findings for Variance Approval The Zoning Code requires that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance as set forth in Section 20.82.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of such application will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public _ welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood., i Applicant's Statement of Support The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the application and a letter previously submitted by the applicant is included in the attached staff• report dated April 6,1995: What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, building, or use? "The subject property is a unique lot with unusual characteristics: 1) Extraordinary setbacks, 2) Encumbrances; 3) and Unusual slope." Why is a variance necessary to preserve, property rights? "The combination of this lots unique characteristics and current setbacks creates a hardship for applicant to build his personal residence (SFR) which detracts from his full and substantial property rights, than that of other Corona del Mar lots without these hardships." It, 00 TO: Planning Commission-6. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? "The'increase in the buildable area is below the typical Corona del Mar lot and other adjacent properties and is reasonable buildable area for custom homes in this area. The unique and unusual characteristics of 319 Carnation Avenue are unlike other properties in Newport Beach. No unusual precedent is being set. It is the staff s opinion that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than -the other lots in Corona del Mar. It is staffs further opinion that the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights or the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises 40% of the subject property. It is also staffs opinion that the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, -comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. Proposed Building Encroachments into Front Yard Setback Adjacent to Abandoned Carnation Avenue As shown on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing to have the front portion of three levels of the proposed building encroach as much as 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback The basement and the first floor encroachments each total approximately 360f'sq.ft. of floor area and the second floor encroachment area totals 3661 sq.ft.. Said encroachments have -been requested and will extend to the edge of the sewer easement as depicted on the attached plot plan. The portion of the encroachments which extend beyond the easement line are addressed in the -following section of this staff report. This is 10 feet further out than either of the two existing projects located at 303-309 and 311-317' Carnation Avenue southwesterly of the "subject property. • Those two projects currently maintain approximately 10 foot front yard setbacks from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of- way to the garages of both projects and 8 feet to the architectural features'of 303-309 Carnation Avenue. x In conjunction with Variance No. 1178, staff was of the opinion That the proposed first and second floors of the new construction should at least preserve the existing view corridor towards Begonia Park, and maintain the same setbacks as the building on -the adjoining -property to the southwest. The story poles show that the proposed structure's second floor level'will impact'the existing -view corridor towards Begonia Park inasmuch as that portion of the structure will -extend above the paved portion of vacated Carnation Avenue. Conversely, the proposed first floor level will not impact the existing view corridor, if the roof will not be higher than the proposed second floor level. 'Therefore, staff originally suggested the following Condition of Approval to allow the basement and first floor levels to encroach into the front yard setback. Should the Planning Commission concur with -the recommendation of staff, the following Condition of Approval No. 32 is suggesfed to be included in Exhibit "A". %61 TO: Planning Commission -7. 32. That the front yard encroachment at the second floor shall maintain the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the vacated Carnation Avenue right-of-way as required by Districting Map No. 17 except as otherwise allowed by Section 20.10.025 of the Municipal Code. Also, that no portion of the roof located within the front yard setback shall exceed the top of street elevation of the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. It should be noted that in conjunction with the approval of Variance No. 1178, the Planning Commission approved portions of the basement, first and second floors to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. Specific Findings Should the Planning Commission desire to approve this application as requested by the applicant, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" (Revised) are suggested. Should the Commission desire to approve this application but limit the encroachments into the front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue, the additional Condition of Approval No. 32, should be incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A". Should the Planning Commission wish to deny this application in its entirety, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. BEWICIMR, Director By 'I. vier S. Garcia Senior Planner Attachments: . Exhibit "A" (Revised) Exhibit "B" VicnutyMap Planning Commission StaffReport dated April 6, 1995 with attachments Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 6, 1995 hTomration from Applicant (Summary of Compromise and Activity Since April 6, 1995) Letters and Petition of Opposition Revised Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations JAY-OVARM202•CDOC to/X TO: Planning Commission -8. EXHIBIT "A' (REVISED) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 1202 (As Submitted by Applicant) FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots in Corona del Mar. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises 40 % of the subject property. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the•public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the irregularly shaped lot has less buildable area than other lots in Corona del Mar, since the site has two front yard setbacks and two rear yard setbacks which are more restrictive than other lots on the same block. 5. That the proposed development is designed to minimize the alterations of natural landforms along the bluff. 6. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large fdr access through or use of property within the proposed development. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the open space location requirement of the MFR District. 9. That the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue, and into the required rear yard setbacks will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or N10 TO: Planning Commission -9. injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and.fiuther that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this- Code, inasmuch as the subject property is encumbered by unusual setback requirements and an abandoned •right-of-way which is not included in the buildable area of the site. CONDITIONS: That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and section, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed structure shall be limited to a maximum of 3,934f square feet of gross floor area (excluding 400 square feet for the two car garage). 3. That the proposed first floor balcony shall be redesigned so as to maintain a 10 foot 6 inch setback from the Bayside Drive right-of-way. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That an additional 9 feet of easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the public along the Carnation Avenue frontage contiguous with the existing 6 foot sewer easement. This easement is necessary to provide for future maintenance of the existing sewer main. That there shall be no structural encroachments into the proposed easement unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 7. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That, the Carnation Avenue street end be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement and that a standard street end guard rail be constructed to protect the motoring public and pedestrians with the design to be approved by the Traffic Engineer: 10. That the stability of the slope along Bayside Drive and within the Bayside Drive right-of- way be stabilized in conformance with the recommendations of a Geological report and to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. That the geological report that determines areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be submitted prior to•issuance of any building permits for construction or grading. TO: Planning Commission -10. 11. That the proposed retaining wall along Bayside Drive be redesigned as two (2) walls, one located approximately 4 feet behind existing sidewalk and the other wall located within the project property lines with a maximum -,slope of 2:1 behind each wall. The wall design shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That an Encroachment Agreement be executed by the owner for maintenance of the wall located in the public right-of-way and to hold the City harmless form any liability associated with the existence of the wall. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. That the Encroachment Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 12. That the owner execute a hold harmless agreement on the slopes within the Bayside Drive right-of-way. The agreement shall hold the City harmless from any existing or future slope failures. The form and content of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. That the Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 13. That the slope along the Bayside Drive frontage be landscaped as approved by the Public Works Department, the City Grading Engineer and the General Services Department. 14. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 15. That a drainage study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. That the roof and site drainage be conveyed to Carnation Avenue or Bayside Drive in a manner approved 'by -the City Grading Engineer ,and the, Public Works Department. 16. That the location of the sewer lateral connection .to. the public sewer,system be reviewed and approved by the Utilities department prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. 17. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 18. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic• control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be :conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 19. That overhead utilities�serving.the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal .Code unless it is deternrined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 20. That driveway slopes shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.. Nve TO: Planning Commission-11. 21. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 22. That the grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimany potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 23. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 24. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 25. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design 26. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be famished to the Building Department. 27. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 28. That any proposed fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1(horizontal to vertical) slope ratio and shall be subject to further review by the City Grading Engineer. 29. That any planned slope irrigation shall be controlled by an automatic system control device with an override keyed to continuous soil moisture measurement devices. The preparation and planting of the site slopes shall be designed by an experienced landscape planner, and all slopes shall be planted upon their completion and all planting must be maintained in growing condition for at least two years or until accepted by the Building Official. 30. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building or grading permits. 31. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. \\3 TO: Planning Commission -12. EXHIBIT "B° FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 1202 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the -land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and/or uses on the other lots in the area -which justify exceeding the allowable buildable area and the location requirement of open space. 2. That the subject property maintains sufficient buildable area so as to permit the construction of an adequate home within the required front and rear yard setbacks. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the proposed encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. `1A Planning Commission Meeting April 6. 1995 Agenda ItemNo. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Variance No 1202 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -or -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation, Avenue, so as to encroach 16 inches± with a roof overhang, and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into said abandoned , right-of-way. The .application also includes a modification to,the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feeti LOCATION: A portion of Block "D", Corona del Mar, .and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of 'Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR (2178) APPLICANT: Robert S. Losey, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant TO; Planning Commission -2. Application This application involves a request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -or -way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to ehcroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach 16 inches± with a roof overhang, and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into said abandoned right-of-way. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. Variance procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.82, and modification procedures are discussed in Chapter 20.81 ofthe Municipal Code. Environmental Sinficance This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site fo'r "Multi -Family Residential"` uses. 'The proposed development is consistent with this designation in that the proposed construction will only consist of a single family dwelling. In adcordance with the provisions of the California Coastal Act, the subject project requires the approval of a Coastal Permitl r Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The'subject property is irregularly shaped and currently vacant residential uses; to the east, across abandoned Carnation dwellings; to the south is a four unit condominium project; residential uses. Background To the north, across Bayside Drive are Avenue, is a duplex and multi -family and to the west, below the blur are At its meeting of January 9, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 1178 (5 Ayes, 2 Noes), a request to permit the construction of a smgle family dwelling on the subject property which NO i e TO: Planning Commission -3. exceeded the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed development provided the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space did not meet Ordinance requirements. The approval also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required' 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way as established by Districting Map No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction was also permitted to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach an additional 6 inches on the first floor for a bay window and one foot on the second floor for a bathroom extension. This approval of Variance No. 1178 was not implemented, and has subsequently expired. It should be noted that in conjunction with the approval and review, the applicant erected story poles which outlined the extent of the proposed structure on the subject property, and the newly proposed structure is very similar to the dwelling unit previously approved by the Planning Commission. Excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes dated November 7, 1991 and January 9, 1992 are attached for the Commission's information. At .its meeting of February 9, 1995, the Planning commission -requested additional information from the applicant related to a geotechnical report, a retaining wall and landscaping design and that story poles once again be erected outlining the comers of the building on all sides of the property (see attached excerpt of Planning Commission minutes dated February 9, 1995). The erection of the story poles was completed on March 29, 1995 and the applicant also submitted additional information and photographs which are attached for the Commission's information. The geotechnical report indicates that the subject property is suitable for the proposed construction, provided the conclusions and the recommendation of the report are incorporated into the design criteria and project specifications. Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,018 sq.ft. single family dwelling and two garage spaces on the subject. property. (It should be noted that the architect's calculations differ from staffs scaling of the submitted plans.) The proposed structure consists offour levels of living area. The basement level consists of two bedrooms, two baths and a family room for a total floor area of 1,327 sq.ft.; the first Door level consists of a main'entry, living room, kitchen, powder room, and dining room for a total floor area of 1,234 sq.ft., andyan exterior balcony; the second floor level consists of a master bedroom and master bathroom, related closets and storage for a total of 962 sq.ft., and a 495 sq.ft. two car garage, and the third floor level, above the garage, is occupied by a bedroom and a bath for a total 410 sq.ft. and an 80 sq.ft. exterior deck area. The following outline sets forth the major characteristics of the proposed development, as well as the design parameters. Parcel Size ('includes the abandoned Carnation Avenue easement which consists of 2,332 sq.ft.): Buildable Area: 5,560f sq.ft. 1,1401 sq.ft. Allowable Dwelling Units one d.u. per 2,178 sq. ft. of (on this lot located in the MFR (2178) buildable lot area District) 1,� t �l TO: Planning Commission 4. Proposed Dwelling Units one d.u. Setbacks: Required Proposed Development Front Carnation Ave (on Districting 10 ft. (measured Varies from, 0 feet for the Map No. 17) from vacated three living levels (with no.w line) encroachments on the vacated r.o.w. discussed below) to 15 ft. to the garage Bayside Drive (on Districting 10 ft. Varies from 10 ft. to 13 ft. Map No. 17) Rear Side Opposite Carnation Ave. 10 ft. 4 ft. Side Opposite Bayside Drive 101ft. 4 ft. Parking: 2 spaces 2 garage spaces Building Height: 28 ft. averaget33 ft. maximum, permitted 27 ft. midpoint/27 ft. maximum ridge, both at the worst case, proposed Required Proposed Development Gross Structural Area: 1,710f sq.ft. 4,018-1 sq.ft. (Floor Area 1.5=times the 3.52f'times the '- Ratio F.AR) Buildable Area Buildable Area ofthe site, of the site (excluding 400 sq. ft. of (excluding 400 sq. ft. garage area as permitted in the • " garage) WRDistrict) '• Open Space: 6,8401 cu.ft. over 7,558 cu. ft.(excluding the (1,140.B.A.x requiredisetbacks•and the 25 6 = 6,840 c.f.) foot vacated right-of-way) Location of Open Space: Required Proposed Development 1. contiguous to the front yard setback 1,710f cu.ft. 2,769f cu.ft. (Bayside Drive) (25%) 2. contiguous to the front yard setback 1,7101 cu.ft. 1,932f cu.ft. (Carnation Ave. r o.w) (25%) 1 %� TO: Planning Commission -5. Location of Open Space: —Reef uired 3. contiguous to the rear yard setback 1,710E cu.ft. (25%) 4. contiguous to the rear yard setback 1,710E cu.ft. (25%) Proposed Development 1,505E cu.ft. (Southerly Side) 1,353t cu.ft. (Westerly Side) 5. open on two sides and to the sky 3,420E cu.ft. over 5,626 cu.ft. (50%) As shown in the above table, the subject project conforms with all aspects of the MFR District, except for the proposed buildable area and gross square footage, rear yard setbacks, front yard encroachment adjacent to vacated Carnation Avenue, the height of walls within the Carnation Avenue easement area, and the required location of the required open space as defined by Section 20.19.035 E of the Municipal Code. Proposed Buildable Area The subject property currently maintains 94 feet of frontage on the abandoned Carnation Avenue right- of-way, an average 65 foot depth, and a 65.46 foot frontage along Bayside Drive. As noted in the .above outline, the abandoned Carnation Avenue easement makes up 2,332 sq.ft. of the subject property. The required front and rear yard setbacks, as specified by the NOR District and the Zoning Code (10 feet, all the way around the property), results in a buildable area of only 1,140E square feet. Such a buildable area would permit a maximum of 1,710E square feet of gross structural area. As indicated in the above outline, the applicant's project includes 4,018E square feet of gross structural area (the MFR District makes allowance for a credit of 200 sq.ft. for each enclosed, required parking space to be deleted from the allowed square footage),which exceeds the allowable gross structural area by approximately 2,308E square feet. However, it is the applicant's opinion that the required setbacks; the 'existing abandoned Carnation Avenue Ingres&Sgress Easement and the resulting buildable area are overly. restrictive and is therefore requesting approval of a variance so as to permit the construction of the proposed single family dwelling. It should be noted that the proposed area is 415 •sq.ft. larger than that previously approved in conjunction with Variance No. 1178. This is a result of various alterations in the building configuration and floor plans. It should be noted that the majority of the changes occurred within the envelope of the previous approval and into the slope of the properly, as well as minor expansions to the entry and additions to the basement, first floor and garage. In previous sin -Mar applications, the Planning Commission has approved .variances to allow greater gross floor area when it was shown that the proposed project maintained the same ratio of floor area to land area as other typical residential developments in the neighborhood. In this,case, a typical 40 ft. x 120 ft. (4,800 sq.ft.), MFR lot with a front yard setback of 10 feet, side yard setbacks of 3 feet, and a 10 foot rear yard setback, will allow a maximum building area of 5,100 sq.ft. Such a lot,would maintain a floor area to land area ratio of 1.0625. If the same ratio were peanitted on the subject property, the resulting gross floor area would be 5,908E square feet (1.0625 x 5,5601 sq.ft = 5,908E 0 TO: Planning Commission -6. sq.ft.). As indicated in the previous outline, the subject project contains 4,018 square feet which " represents a floor area to land area ratio of 0.72, or approximately 1,890t square feet less than the - comparable Carnation Avenue residential development located on the same side of Carnation Avenue. As indicated in the above outline, the proposed project complies with the required front yard setback as established by Districting Map No. 17 for the northerly side of the property (Bayside Drive) -but not the required rear yard setbacks or the setback from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rear yard setbacks are consistent with the setbacks maintained by the neighboring property and that the neighboring project will not be adversely affected by the reduced setbacks Proposed Building Encroachments into Front Yard Setback Adjacent to Abandoned Carnation Avenue As shown on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing to have the front portion of three levels of the proposed building encroach as much as 10 feet into the required 10 foot front -yard -setback. The basement and the first floor encroachments each total approximately 3601 sq.ft. of floor area and the second floor encroachment area totals 366f sq.ft.. Said encroachments have been requested and will extend to the edge of the sewer easement as depicted on the attached plot plan. The portion of the encroachments which extend beyond the easement line are addressed in the following section of this staff report. This is 10 feet further out than either of the two existing projects located at 303-309 and 311-317 Carnation Avenue southwesterly of the subject property. Those two projects currently maintain approximately 10 foot front yard setbacks from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of- way to the garages of both projects and 8 feet to the architectural features of 303-309 Carnation Avenue. In conjunction with Variance No. 1178, staff was of -the opinion that the proposed first and second floors of the new •construction should at least preserve the existing view corridor towards Begonia Park, and maintain the same setbacks as the building onthe adjoining property to the southwest. The story poles show that the proposed structure's second floor level will impact the existing view corridor towards Begonia Park inasrriuch as that portion of the structure will+extend above the paved portion of vacated Carnation Avenue. Conversely, the proposed first floor level will not impact the existing,view corridor, if the roof will not `be higher than theproposed second floor level. Therefore, staff.origirially suggested the following Condition of Approval to allow the basement -and first floor levels to encroach into the front yard setback. Should the Planning Commission concur with the recommendation of staff; the following Condition of Approval No. 30 is suggested to:be included in Exhibit' A". • - 30. That the front yard encroachment at the second floor shall maintain the required 10 t foot front yard setback adjacent to the vacated Carnation Avenue right-of-way as required by Districting Map No. 17 except as otherwise allowedby Section 20.10.025 of the Municipal Code. Also, that no portion of the roof located within the front yard setback shall exceed the top of street elevation of the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. e.. TO: Planning Commission -7. It should be noted that in conjunction with the approval of Variance No. 1178, the Planning Commission approved portions of the basement, first and second floors to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. Proposed Encroachments Into Carnation Avenue -Easement A review of the site plan indicates that a stairway and three new retaining walls will extend out beyond the 10 foot front yard setback area into the 25 foot Carnation Avenue Easement area. These encroachments will not appreciably impact the views of existing residential properties southwesterly of the subject property. The proposed stairway is approximately 4 feet above natural grade at its highest point and the retaining walls will not exceed 3 feet in height above natural grade. The Public Works Department is concerned that the proposed encroachments may affect the existing sewer easement and therefore has recommended that the easement be increased from 6 feet to 15 feet to accommodate any future work which may be required on the existing sewer lines. The appropriate condition of approval has been included in the attached Exhibit "A'. Story Poles Locations The applicant has erected eleven story poles on the subject property (numbered 1 thru 11 on the attached Revised Reference Plot Plan), which represent the location of selected comers of the proposed structure. A copy of color photographs showing the story poles as viewed from selected locations will be available at the meeting for the Commission's information; (these are the originals of the photo copies attached to the staff report, which are of poor contrast).. The applicant has indicated that the story poles have markings which depict the floor level elevations and the roof elevations of the two parts of the structure as follows: The basement floor level elevation is red; the first floor level elevation is green; the second floor level elevation is yellow; and the top of roof elevation is red' (the main house is outlined, by.poles no. 51, 112 , 6, 7, 8, 93, 10 and 4 on the attached Revised Reference Plot Plan). The garage floor level elevation is yellow; the floor level elevation of the bedroom above the garage is green; the deck level elevation is yellow, and the top of roof elevation is red ( the garage section of the house and rooms above are outlined by poles no. 1, 2, 3 and 4).- It should be noted that Poles No. 8 and 10 did not exist at the time,of the field inspection. It should also be noted that the markings on some of the poles which are to depict the plane of the garage floor level and the house floor levels are not at the same height on the -poles. This tends to confuse the actual height of the roof structure at those points. The applicant will attempt to explain the discrepancies at the public hearing. It should be noted that in conjunction with the previous consideration of Variance No. 1178, neighbors objected to the proposed project with regard to obstruction of existing views, however, the Planning 1 It should be noted that Pole No. 5 does not have a terminal color at the top. 2 It should be noted that Pole No. 11 does not have a terminal color at the top 3 It should be noted that Pole No. 9 at the time of inspection -on March 30, 1995 had blown down by the wind and its impact was not able to be assessed. 121 a j TO: Planning Commission -8. Commission determiried that the views which were affected were private views and that the impact on i public views from the end of vacated Camation Avenue was negligible. It should also be noted that the increase in the square footage does not significantly alter the view obstruction as can be seen on the attached Reference Plot Plan (from Variance No. 1178). The new building comer (No. 6 on the Revised Reference Plot Plan) is located just southeasterly of Pole No. 21( on the Reference Plot Plan). Open Space Requirement The MFR District development standards (Section 20.19.045 E) which went into effect on December 27, 1989, requires that a minimum of 25% of the required operl space (1,7101: cu.ft.) be located immediately contiguous to the required rear yard setback, 25% of the required open space be located immediately contiguous to the required front yard setback, and that 50% of the required open space be open to the sky and open on at least two additional sides. The amount of open space provided by the proposed project to meet the required 25% contiguous to the westerly rear yard setback, is deficient by approximately 205f cu.ft. and the required 25% contiguous to the southerly rear yard setback is deficient by approximately 357 cu.ft.. This can be accounted by the fact that the roof or a portion of the building effectively separates the open space at the rear of the property from the balance of the property. It should also be noted that the open space requirements of the MFR District require that a minimum six foot cube exclusive of any required front, side or rear yard setbacks, must be located immediately adjacent to the required front and rear yard setbacks. To accomplish this will require that the building be radically redesigned so that the minimum six foot cube is maintained as a deck or patio area Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project is designed in the spirit of the NOR District'development standards and that the amount of the'open'space is in excess of the required'amount. The proposed height of the proposed'structure is also below* the permitted height as allowed by the MFR District, which reduces the overall visual bulk ofthe structure. Reauired Findines forVariance Anvroval The Zoning Code requires tliat in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance as set forth in Section 20.82.020 of the Newport BeachMunicipa Code 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the -land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district. 2. That the grariting-of the -application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial-propertyrights ofthe applicant. 3. That the granting -of such applicationvill not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and lac r) TO: Planning Commission -9. will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. Applicant's Statement of Support The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the application: What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, building, or use? "The subject property is a unique lot with unusual characteristics: 1) Extraordinary setbacks; 2) Encumbrances; 3) and Unusual slope." Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? "The combination of this lot's unique characteristics and current setbacks creates a hardship for applicant to build his personal residence (SFR) which detracts from his full and substantial property rights, than that of other Corona del Mar lots without these hardships." Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? "The increase in the buildable area is below the typical Corona del Mar lot and other adjacent properties and is reasonable buildable area for custom homes in this area. The unique and unusual characteristics of 319 Carnation Avenue are unlike other properties in Newport Beach. Nounusualprecedent is being set. It is the staffs opinion that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots in Corona del Mar. It is staff further opinion that the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights or the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises 40% of the subject property. It is also staffs opinion that the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. Specific Findings Should the Planning Conunission desire to approve this application as requested by the applicant, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny this application in its entirety, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested. TO: Plararing Commission -10. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. BEWICKER, Director By. vier S. Garcia &• Igu Senior Planner Attachments: Exlu'bit "A" Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Excerpts ofPlanning Commission minutes dated November 7, 1991, January 9, 1992 and February 9,1995 Revised Reference Plot Plan Reference Plot Plan (from Variance No. 1178) Copy of Geotechnical Report Letter of Response from Applicant to Letter of Opposition with Attachments, including Letters of Approval and Photographs Letters of Opposition Landscape Plans 124 TO: Planning Commission -11. EXHIBIT 'W' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCENO. 1202 (As Submitted by Applicant) FINDINGS: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch as the subject property maintains a very steep slope which is significantly different than the other lots in Corona del Mar. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is within the permitted height limit of 28/32 Height Limitation Zone and the property is encumbered by overly restrictive setbacks and an unbuildable easement area which comprises 40 % of the subject property. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the irregularly shaped lot has less buildable area than other lots in Corona del Mar, since the site has two front yard setbacks and two rear yard setbacks which are more restrictive than other lots'on the same block 5. That the proposed development is designed to minimize the alterations of natural landforms along the bluff..' 6. That the design of thq proposed improvements will not.conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large forlaccess through or use of property within the proposed -development. 7. • That public improvements maybe required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the proposed project substantially meets the intent of the open space location requirement ofthe NIFR District. 9. That the approval of the modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed encroachments into the required front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue, and into the required rear yard setbacks will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons resitting or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or is 5 TO: Planning Commission-12. injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, r and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, inasmuch as the subject property is encumbered by unusual setback requirements and an abandoned right-of-way which is not included in the buildable area of the site. CONDITIONS: That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved .plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and section, exceptas noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and.the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That an additional 9 feet of easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the public along the Carnation Avenue frontage contiguous with the existing 6 foot sewer easement. This easement is necessary to provide for future maintenance of the existing sewer main. That there shall be no structural encroachments into the proposed easement unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the on -site parking and vehicular circulation be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. That the Carnation Avenue street end be improved with curb, gutter, ,sidewalk and pavement and that a standard street end guard rail be constructed to protect, the motoring public and pedestrians with the design to be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 8. That the stability of the slope along Bayside Drive and within the Bayside Drive right-of- way be stabilized in conformance with the recommendations of a Geological report and to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer. That the .geological report that determines areas of potential instability or hazard along with a map indicating such information must be submitted prior to issuance of any building pernilts for construction or grading. 9. That the proposed retaining wall along Bayside Drive be redesigned as two-(2) walls, one located approximately 4 feet behind existing sidewalk and the other wall located within the project property lines with a maximum slope of 2:1 behind each wall. The wall design shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That.an Encroachment Agreement be executed by the owner for maintenance of the wall located in the public right-of-way and to hold the City harmless form any liability associated with.the existence of the wall. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued, by the Public Works 1 a lO TO: Planning Commission -13. Department. That the Encroachment Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 10. That the owner execute a hold harmless agreement on the slopes within the Bayside Drive right-of-way. The agreement shall hold the City harmless from any existing or future slope failures. The form and content of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. That the Agreement be executed prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permits. 11. That the slope along the Bayside Drive frontage be landscaped as approved by the Public Works Department, the City Grading Engineer and'the General Services Department. 12. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 13. That a drainage study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. That the roof and site drainage be conveyed to Carnation Avenue or Bayside Drive in a manner approved by the City Grading Engineer and the Public Works Department. 14. That the location of the sewer lateral connection to the public sewer system be reviewed and approved by the Utilities department prior to issuance of any building permits for the site. 15. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 16. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 17. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Sedtion 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 18. That driveway slopes shallbe approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 19. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved,by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 20. That the grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 121 TO: Planning Commission -14. 21. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the s site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 22. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region 23. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 24. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading -plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 25. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 26. That any proposed fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio and shall be subject to further review by the City Grading Engineer. 27. That any planned slope irrigation shall be controlled by an automatic system control device with an override keyed to continuous soil moisture measurement devices. The preparation and planting of the site slopes shall be designed by an experienced landscape planner, and all slopes shall be planted upon their completion and all planting must be maintained in growing condition for at least two years or until accepted by the Building Official. 28.. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building or grading permits. I , 29. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Eby A TO: planning Commission -15. EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 1202 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and/or cues on the other lots in the area which justify exceeding the allowable buildable area and the location requirement of open space. 2. That the subject property maintains sufficient buildable area so as to permit the construction of an adequate home within the required front and rear yard setbacks. 3. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 4. That the proposed encroachments into the required front and rear yard setbacks will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City; and further that the proposed with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. , I -Aq r � / VICINITY MAP FEET Y O„ l f Sl6 MAP AO. /O DISTRICTING NPORT BEACH - < AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C_I DUPLE% RESIDE ITUL C—E MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL M-1 VARIANCE NO. 12 °Z MAP pESTO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LIGHT COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL MANUFACTUIYME UMCLASSIFIEO . r I &r rx,AMcra W44r 4oC.A : ASA, Ca A11 ury lu.ur. n«w.v array As ww "Of. ,e'r[orr rAu !Hoer ac wr«.[ tart f,[. 211,0.0«. areA q mw W. mr&m M am va.. 211, C.VA MIMt RWK I[M[11TI[[ TOY,[ [ ORD. NO. #311 MAP N DRG 9f."m is 0 CITY O'F NEWPORT X.N BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL Lo Q q W a: 3MS000, a:W w U1 rq 00 w _ J ~ J August 14, 1995 ' INDEX ouncil. Member, - Edwards indicated his con ence with the, remarks made; by Council Members x, a_ nd,offered an a mendmgnt�to,the ', above motto equesting that when the subject Ordinance is brou back to Council,) the staff report _ include not some .background information,.,but on.ove, le f the problem, to which there.were `no objections. 11 Ayes The motion, as amended, was voted o and carried. 46. Mayor Hedges opened the public hearing on the variance 120 APPEAL BY WILLIAM N. SMIRL regarding application ' 319 Carnatio of Robert Losey for VARIANCE NO. 1202, on property •(91) located at 319 Carnation Avenue - Request'to permit the construction of a -single family dwelling on property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the dliowable 1.5 times the• buildable area of tKe site. The proposed development provides the required amount of open space, but the location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the'proposed structure to encroach 10 , feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback 'adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right -of way as established by Districting Map ,No. 17, and to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also l proposes to extend beyond the original lot 'line ! adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach up to 12 feet with -- portions of the revised construction and an additional 16 inche'st with a roof overhang, and three retaining', wails which encroach i3 to 12 feet Into sald'abanaotied right-of-way. The application also includes a modification to permit'an entry stairway which wil),dlso extend 10 feet,beyond,the original`lot line adjacer t'to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and' Will measure 4 feet above natural, grade where, the'Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 31feet. l Report from,Planning Department. r " Appeal Application,of William N. Smiri. Y Letter from Bertram 'and Edna Rowe objecting to obstruction of views, both public End private, by i the' proposed variance. Letter from Law Offices of Joe - DiPaola, Esq., representing appellant William N. Smirl. Volume 49 - Page 359 C I TY-; OF NEWFORT ..BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL ¢ X3ATxc°�5o u' 0 x W o J z August ta, 1995 INDEX f Mr. Delino explained the graphics on display which Variance 1202 depicted the subject property as well. as surrounding parcels: outlined the key issues and what was approved by the Planning Commission (referenced in orange in the graphics). The staff answered questions posed by Council, following which; Robert Losey, Applicant, ' 424 Goldenrod Avenue,' addressed the Council in ? . support of his application pointing out the i following: The property at 319 Carnation Avenue is the ideal property for which a variance is intended; three conditions must exist for a variance to be granted; 'l.e:, ,1) if hat there are exceptional . circumstances applying to the land whichdo, not generally apply to land in the same district, 2) .that , the granting of "'the' application preserves substantial property rights of the applicant, •and 3) -- .•the granting of such an application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood; this • particular lot has unique hardships, i.e., its unusual shape, {steep slope, a sewer' easement and ", abandoned easement; because of the sewer e'sement and abandoned egsernent, staff has interpreted this lot to.have,two front and rear yarc i which interpretation restricts a 5,560 square foot lot to a structure.with a footprint of 1',140 square feet, ,permitting a' house of only 1,710 square feet; in contrast, the typical Corona del Mar lot has 3,540 square feet,, allowing for a footprint of 2,376 square feet;, granting this variance is necessdry to preserve substantial property rights beoause'it allows a' reasonable , squdfeet with less.than 37% of lot home of 3,930,re coverage; the Planning Commission has reviewed this' variance twice 'before and ihas found no substantial' evidence"that there is anything materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious, to' „property improvements' in the neighborhood; further, the Planning Commission i ;has found no'private'views lost as; a result of this s ' variance, in fdct, the Impact on private views is less + than what would' occu"if he were'to build as by. Code;, he has met wi}h his neighbors permitted with respect to private views, and based upon from the l Planning i their•, input and ; suggestions ., he ' ' of Commission, has made a number) I modifications to the plans to satisfy their concems, I such as lowering.his,r;gf line toiguarantee;Mk E, I { Billings a bay view f{om :his second floor, he also moved the garage back to mitigate its Impact on , Mr. ; Phelan's fror2t entry, and he ;moved i the ;1• j bayside bglcony, baakso that no aspect of the I i Volume 49 - Page 360 I vI I NUTE S ROLL G"AALL v,In ¢ QQwwo�% w 3ra=V a:0 > 00 W August 14, 1995 INDEX requested variance would impactprivate views, the subject; structure is smaller fha'n adjoining buildings and when:cornpared to a typical !single ' famiiy' home, his structure has a smaller) footprint and less ticoverage; he urged the Council to , uphold: the decision of the PlanningCommission and grant his request. Variance 12C i i The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the requested Variance: Joe DiPaola, Attorney representing William Smiri, Appellant Tom Phillips, 31566rnation Avenue John Garrett, 313 Carnation Avenue Bill Phalen, 317 Carnation Avenue Ross'Biliings; 3l4'Ca�nation Avenue Be -La Force„all Carnation Avenue Bertram Rowe, 407-B Fernleaf Avenue Ralph Umbriaco, 405-1/2 Femieof Avenue Clare Taber, 309 Carnation Avenue Rick Duggan, 57 Clermont Avenue Some 'of the concerns •expressed by the above speakers were as follows: The proposed structure will impact public and private views; self-induced hardship is not grounds for the Council to grant the Variance; the average home in the area is 2,000 sq. ft., whereas the proposed structure is 3,930 sq. ft.; the applicant is "over -developing" his property; the Planning Commission had no:lega[ basis to approve the subject 'Variance because of the property rights it' will be taking from all the other neighbors" surrounding, Mr. Losey's proposed stricture; the Planning Department ignored factual data 'whlch would have forced' the Planning Commission to deny the Variance; the placement of the Storey poles was inaccurate unlike what the Applicant represents, and therefore, is misleading; if the V'.ariance is approved, the City will be faced with a "monstrous eyesore;" the proposal violates City Code regulations in at least 8 to 10 areas; the Variance will. have a materially adverse affect on property values .in the area; the Variance is excessive as well as unnecessary; the zero setback on the Carnation Avenue right-of-way is in violation of setbacks required of other properties on Carnation Avenue; the right-of-way' view of Begonia Park is a valuable neighborhood asset, and is used •both as a public, and private viewpiace; parking is already a problem 'in .the area, and the proposed structure is•only providing a two -car garage 'for a home with several bedrooms; in closing, it was urged that the a Variance be denied or referred' back to the Planning Commission for a compromise. Volume 49 - Page 361 CITY`OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL GALL U, 3wwo�Z Cr a ra W = tJ w S. H 0 August 14, 1995 INDEX Buzz Person, Attorney for the Applicant, Robert Variance 1202 Losey, addressed'the Council in support 'of the Variance stating that the homes from 311 through 317 Carnation Avenue are in a 9,200 square foot building which contains four residences, and, the building immediately to'the south of that structure has`7,000 square.feet. 'The particular lot in question is 5,500 'square feet, and is the "perfect" type of application that warrants the granting ; of a ; ,' Variance;,'.arid is the reason : the Planning " "Commission granted -approval. " Hearing'no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. ' Council'Member O'Neil stated he'has visitedithe lotion x _' subject* property,, , an'd offered the following:, he agrees that the property is unique and there are exceptional 'circumstances to take' into i consideration; he; has attempted to, look' at . 'preserving substantial, property rights vs, material and injurious impacts, on surrounding properties, and in so doing, he found that this Variance was granted approximately,, three years ago by the Planning Commission and that a new City Council after five public hearings also granted 'this Variance with the necessary findings required by the Municipal Code, all of which information has been duplicated and provided to the current City Council; inasmuch as the Applicant has made some effort to modify the project to be less impacting upon the neighbors, and there is no compelling new evidence offered at this meeting that would persuade him to not uphold the decision of the Planning Commission; he, , therefore, moved to sustain the decision of;the Planning 'Commrssion and grant Variance No. 1202, based 'on the Findings'and Conditions for,Approval designateii'as Exhibit "A" In the staff report. Council Member Watt indicated she agreed that there are exceptional circumstances involved with this: particular"piece of property; however, she does not'feel the .granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, but does feel the granting of the Variance Willi be materially detriment l 'to.the public welfare and surrounding property. Shels also concerned about preserving the view` from' Begonia Park, as well as the height toward ttie •rear of the subject property and its affect'on ihe'neighbor, and therefore,,she will not be supporting'theimotion. Volume 49 - Page 362 C I TY' 'OF NEWPORT BEACIH MINUTES ROLL CALL 3 .3 w A o = x ,U o U z o August 14,199 5 r INDEX Regarding the stability of the slope, the City Attorney stated that the., City would not be liable ' for any damage caused by the Issuance or the failure to issue any building permit"or the granting of this Variance. kyes x x x x x x Foilowing discussion,, the motion was voted on and foes x carried. 7. Mayor, Hedges, opened the continued public /P 1956 (A) hearing concerning USE , PERMIT NO. hunderbird 1956(AMENDED) FOR THE THUNDERBIRD! CLUB at lub 3505 Via Oporto, to determine whether,or not to (88) rescind the revocation of subject use permit. eport from City Attorney,. Cc ncii Member O'Neil recused himself for the reas ns stated at the July 10, 1995 City Council meets g, and to avoid any appearance of bias. Mayor Tern Deboy stated she was absent from the July 1 1995 Council meeting, but has reviewed the, video and minutes from the meeting, and therefore, wi participate in these proceedings. The City Clerk dvised that after the agenda was printed, a letter as received from Fritz Duda, on behalf 'of the me harts .at Via Lido Plaza, urging the City Council re oke the subject, Use Permit with respect to the o ration of the Thunderbird Nightclub in Lido M 'na Village for.the reasons stated in the letter. The City Attorney refer ced a letter he had received this date from Michael Montgomery, Attorney representing, th Thunderbird Club, requesting this hearing be co inued to September 11,, 1995. He stated the Th nderbird' has, also agreed to tale Council appointin d hearing officer to conduct the remainder of this hearing, and to , submit a transcript to the City 'Council. The Thunderbird will also be submitting , difications to J the conditions imposed by the'Clty ouncil back ,in June 1994i.cnd;modiflcations to thel' ongoing or existing characteristics which might resol a some of the, problems the, .,City ds experiencing, ith the Thunderbird. Council Member Glover stated that inasmu as this issue came before the Council in June o this year, she is very hopeful it can be wrapped up y September 11 in that she felt the City owes it to th community to come to some kind of decision. l L a c Volume 49 - Page 363 C I TY'w OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL U� d 3 w3Q=vc90 Q ¢ W W O > J W Z August 14, 1995 INDEX Dave Ariss, co-owner of the Thunderbird Club, Thunderbird addressed the Council and stated they anticipate Club adjusting their hours to include lunch and dinner' trade and wouo like to have a patio set up outside by the fountain at the entrance ,of ,their building to expand ' restaurant operations, In addition to revising their parking plan. He stated it is their intention to submit both plans by August28, 1995 to City staff. They also concur in; the recommendation of taking public testimony , before -a hearing officer by September 11, and to submitting the transcript of that hearing to the City Council by September 25, 1995. Roya Fouladi (no address given) stated she lives directly across Newport' Boulevard from the Thunderbird and from her bedroom window and front deck she has an unobstructed view of the establishment. She urged the Council to not defer action on this'mattei any longer, citing noise as a serious issue not only from individuals, but also from automobiles and motorcycles. ' Motion X Following discussion, motion was made by Mayor Hedges to, this public hearing to „continue September 25, 1995, to appoint p hearing, officer who will take testimony prior to September 11, 1995, and' present a transcript of that testimony to the Council on September 25, 1995, and further, that the Thunderbird Club be required to submit their revised plans by August 28, 1995, and that sold plans reflect that the applicant will operate in conformance with the existing Use Permit. As an aside, Mayor Hedges indicated that, in his opinion, the Thunderbird Club may be "pushing it" if they wish, to 'expand their, operation• as mentioned in the foregoing. Ayes x X X X X The motion was voted on and carried. Noes X Abstained p X PUBLIC COMMENTS' " Mary G. Vaught; 306 Columbia Avenue, addressed -the Council "`and stated she is an art student, s amateur photographer, ,pointer and gardener, i the 14 trees iri i and is concerned about' planted front of and along the side of the recently pairited Balboa moral.- She -stated she' submitted 'photographs to Mayor Pro Tern Debay depicting how the trees block 30% of the mural, and will even block if more when fullygrown. She pointed out Volume 49 - Page 364