Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPowers residence - 2223 Pacific DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 19, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 SUBJECT: Powers Residence (PA2007 -176) 2223 Pacific Drive • Modification No. 2008 -020 APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette, Architect PLANNER: Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner (949) 644 - 3233, rbunimO- city.newport- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests a Modification Permit to exceed the 3 -foot height limitation in the front yard setback to allow for a vehicular- bridge driveway, for guard- railings associated with the vehicular- bridge driveway, and for a solid wall located on the east property line. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct public hearing; 2) Deny Modification Permit No. 2008 -020 with the findings in the attached resolution. 2) Provide direction to the Planning Department on the proposed project's consistency with the Residential Design Criteria (Ordinance No. 2007 -3) and General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies. Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Approval or disapproval of a modification permit application is within the purview of the Zoning Administrator. However, the Zoning Administrator determined that the subject application should properly be heard by the Planning Commission because approval of the project, as proposed, will set a precedent as to application of policies in the General Plan, CLUP, and Criterion No. 6 and Criterion No. 7 of the Residential Design Criteria (Ordinance No. 2007 -3). Staff considers the proposed project, in total, inconsistent with the Residential Design Criteria (Ordinance No. 2007 -3) and CLUP and General Plan policies pertaining to minimizing alteration to coastal bluffs. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide direction to staff and the applicant as to the project's consistency with the policies. Project Setting The subject property is located on the bluff (southerly) side of Pacific Drive between Avocado Avenue and Acacia Avenue in Old Corona del Mar. Most lots on the south side of Pack Drive are through lots extending down to Bayside Drive; however, the subject property abuts another lot that is adjacent to Bayside Drive. (See the Vicinity Map on Page 2) The topography of the lot is sloping down from Pack Drive at the elevation of approximately 79.5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to the back property line of approximately 50 feet above MSL. (See Exhibit No. 3 for proposed project plans and site survey showing elevation points) The subject property is approximately 30.5 feet by 71 feet, calculating to approximately 2,215 square feet in area. The existing, two -story, single - family dwelling on the subject property was constructed without a aaraae. driveway. or curb cut. Project Description The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing, two-story, single - family dwelling and the construction of a new, four -story, single - family dwelling with a total floor area of 1,925 square feet that includes a 191 - square -foot, single -car garage and single -car carport. The proposed vehicular- bridge driveway and guardrail structure are approximately 13 feet 6 inches above what would be, absent the excavation, natural grade, which exceeds the 3 -foot maximum height limit in the front yard setback by 10 feet 6 inches. i Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 4 The solid property line wall is approximately 6 feet 11 inches above what would be, absent the excavation, natural grade, which exceeds the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback by approximately 3 feet 11 inches. The proposed grading excavates the existing contours of the site to where all the proposed grades on site are manufactured. The outdoor patio in the front setback is approximately 10 feet below natural grade at the front property line and the lower patio slab/floor is approximately 22 feet below natural grade at the front setback line. DISCUSSION Consistency with General Plan /LCP Policies Ordinance No. 2007 -3 (Residential Design Criteria) The purpose of the Ordinance is to implement the applicable design policies in the General Plan Land Use Element until the comprehensive re -write of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20, Zoning is complete. Under this Ordinance, staff can not issue a building permit that is inconsistent with the Residential Design Criteria. Most of the design criteria of the Ordinance address architectural treatment, which is not at issue with this project; however, Criteria No. 7 of the Residential Design Criteria addresses site development: ■ "Site planning should follow the basic principle of designing development to fit the features of the site rather that altering the site to fit the design of the development. Whenever possible, natural features such as cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, natural vegetation should avoided or the extent of alteration minimized whenever possible. Adequate buffers should be provided to protect significant or rare biological resources." As shown in the sections on the plans (Exhibit 3, Sheet A -6), a large amount of earth will need to be removed for the construction of the proposed project. Beginning at the front property line, the proposed grading requires excessive excavation to create flat pad areas for the proposed outdoor patio in the front setback and a lower flat pad for the lower level floor. At the rear of the lot, the lower level of the proposed four -story structure is at a lower grade elevation than the coastal bluff of the adjacent neighbor. This may be an example of trying to build too much on a small site. Staff does not believe that this excessive excavation for the purpose of creating below -grade outdoor areas is consistent with this Ordinance. Criteria No. 6 of the Residential Design Criteria addresses impervious entrance surface: • `Impervious surfaces in the front yards should not exceed 50%of the front yard area with the remaining area landscaped. The use of hardscape for walkways, porches and outdoor living areas is permitted. Where a neighborhood pattern of front yards being completely developed with hardscaped outdoor living area 11 Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 5 exists, the 50% minimum shall not apply. Under no circumstances shall hardscaped areas, other than driveways, be used for parking of vehicles. At street level, the front yard setback contains a vehicular- bridge driveway, guardrails, stairs, and areas open to below, which are all hardscape. The only place landscaping is being provided in the front yard setback is on the outdoor patio level in the front yard near the stairs (See Exhibit 3, Sheet A -1). Staff does not believe the amount of hardscape in the front yard setback is consistent with this ordinance. Land Form Protection Both the General Plan and the CLUP contain polices relating to the projection of natural landforms: ■ "Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach." (LU 5.6.4) ■ Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcropping, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource." (NR 23.1) ■ "Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development." (CLOP 4.4.3 -5) ■ "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible." (CLOP 4.4.3 -8) ■ "Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Camation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 6 The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development." (CLUP 4.4.3 -9) ■ "Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Designing buildings to conform to natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. C. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. D. Requiring any altered slope to blend into the natural contours of the site." (CLUP 4.4.3 -12) The property is located on a coastal bluff designated by the CLUP. Staff recognizes that the bluff face of this property and adjacent properties are well developed and new development is permitted on the bluff face, provided alterations to the bluffs are minimized per CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8. The proposed project does not minimize alteration of the bluff as the grading is designed to cut into the bluff for below -grade outdoor areas. In order to comply with the height limit and construct a four -story dwelling, the proposed project cuts into the grade to an elevation where the lowest floor is at a lower elevation than the adjacent property below (See Exhibit No. 3, Sheet A -6). Furthermore, the vehicular- bridge driveway and patio areas are not arranged to conform to the contours of the lot as required by CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12.B. In order to comply with these policies while developing on the face of the bluff, staff seeks direction from the Planning Commission as to how much excavation is appropriate for this site. Modifications Analysis Once the appropriate amount of excavation is determined, the second issue for this property is whether the proposed application for a modification permit can be approved. The required front yard setback is 24 feet per Districting Map No. 16. Within the front yard setback, accessory structures are limited to a maximum height of 3 feet from natural grade pursuant to Section 20.060.030.A. (Extensions into Yards — Accessory Buildings and Structures and Plantings) of the Zoning Code. G Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 7 The proposed vehicular- bridge driveway and guardrails exceed the 3 -foot height limit by approximately 10 feet 6 inches. A driveway constructed with the City standard for a vehicular slope only needs to exceed the front yard setback height limit by approximately 7 feet. The additional height of the bridge structure requested provides head room to construct an outdoor patio below the proposed vehicular- driveway bridge. The proposed solid wall located on the east property line will be used as a handrail for the stairs that lead down to the outdoor patio below the vehicular- bridge driveway. The wall is approximately 6 feet 11 inches in height from natural grade and approximately 3 feet 6 inches above the finished surface of the vehicular- bridge driveway. Public Works Department policy for sight clearance requires structures that exceed 3 feet in height be 50 percent open. Section 20.93.030 (Required Findings) of the Zoning Code requires that the following three findings must be made in order to approve a modification permit: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. C. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Practical Difficulties Finding A) The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. When addressing this finding, the physical aspects of the property and/or improvements and their relationship to adjacent properties may be considered. In this case, the slope of the lot in the front yard setback is too steep per City development standards to construct a driveway on the existing grade (approximately a 40 percent slope). The maximum slope for a residential driveway is 15 percent per City Standard STD - 160 -L -C of Design Criteria, Standard Drawings for Public Works (See Exhibit 2). The proposed vehicular- bridge driveway is designed with a 3 percent slope, which causes the structure to exceed the height limit by 9 feet 2 inches. Additionally, the °l vehicular- bridge driveway will require guardrails, feet 6 inches (See Exhibit 3, Sheet A -4). Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 8 which will exceed the height limit by 13 Staff recognizes the slope of the front yard setback is a hardship since a driveway conforming to the STD - 160 -L -C maximum slope will exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback; however, the applicant requests more relief than is necessary to provide a driveway to the garage. A driveway constructed per City Standard STD -160- L-C maximum 15 percent slope standard in the 24 -foot front yard setback would exceed the 3 -foot height limit by approximately 7 feet. As stated above, the relationship to adjacent properties may be considered for this finding. Staff researched the adjacent properties in City records and conducted a site visit. The adjacent properties have sloping driveways that are similar to the maximum STD- 160 -L -C standard. They are as follows: o 2219 Pacific Drive (property to the west) has an approximate 15 percent slope driveway. o 2215 Pacific Drive (property to the west of 2219) has an approximate 14 percent slope driveway. o The City does not have plans on file for 2227 Pacific Drive (property to the east) as it predates City records. However, after a site visit, staffs opinion is that the driveway has a slope similar to 2215 and 2219 Pacific Drive. Neighborhood Compatibility Finding B) The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, Section 20.93.035.6 states that "the sum of qualities that distinguish the neighborhood from other areas within the City may be considered;" however, only "such characteristics as they relate to the direct impact of the proposed modification on the neighborhood's character, and not development rights that would otherwise be enjoyed without the modification permit," may be considered. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 addresses compatible development in the City's neighborhoods, districts, and corridors: Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. (Land Use Element Policy 5.6. 1) Adjacent properties and most properties on the bluff (southerly) side of Pacific Drive are developed with large single - family dwellings with regular driveways leading from Pacific Drive to the garage and landscaping in the front yard setback. In contrast, the proposed P Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 9 project has a vehicular- bridge driveway with an outdoor patio below in the front yard setback. The proposed vehicular -bridge driveway structure requires cutting into the bluff underneath the driveway instead of filling underneath the driveway similar to the adjacent properties. Furthermore, the proposed project does not provide landscaping in the front yard setback at street level. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6 addresses the character and quality of residential properties for single - family detached and duplex neighborhoods: Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. (Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.6) The proposed vehicular- bridge driveway would be the first of its kind on this street and in the neighborhood. The proposed design would impact the character of the neighborhood as it does not provide landscaping in the front yard at street level. Staffs concern is that this structure can set a precedent for replacing landscaping in front yards with new below -grade outdoor patios. Health and Safety Finding C) The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, potential and averse impacts on persons and property in the vicinity may be considered. These include, but are not limited to, modifications that would significantly interfere with the provision of adequate air and light on an adjacent property, result in excessive noise, vibration, dust, odors, glare, or electromagnetic interference, interfere with safe vehicular sight distances, or result in an invasion of privacy. Although the vehicular- bridge driveway and railings are proposed at 3 percent slope, which is less than the slope of driveways on adjacent properties, it is not expected to interfere with the provisions of this finding. The proposed project was routed to applicable City departments for their review and they did not foresee any safety issues with the proposed project. Zoning Code The subject property is located within the Single - Family Residential (R -1) District. The proposed project will conform to all the required zoning regulations of the R -1 District, with the exception of the increased height for accessory structures in the front yard setback area. Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 10 Alternative The proposed project will excessively excavate the site and does not comply with City policies. An alternative to the proposed project that conforms to City policies would include the following changes: ■ Construction of a 15 percent driveway slope that is consistent with City Standard STD - 160 -L -C. ■ Removal of the below -grade outdoor patio in the front yard setback and fill in the void space below the driveway. ■ Providing landscaping adjacent to the driveway in the front setback. ■ Removal the lower level of the dwelling to reduce the amount of excavation of the coastal bluff. If the Planning Commission decides the findings to approve this modification permit can be made, staff will prepare a resolution for approval on subsequent agenda. Environmental Review The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of Article 19, Categorical Exemptions of the California Environmental Quality Act as the proposed project is one, single - family residence in a residential zone that contains no environmentally significant resources on site. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. �z Prepared by: 11 ' Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner EXHIBITS 1. Draft resolution Powers Residence June 19, 2008 Page 11 Submitted by: David Lepo, Planning Director 2. Public Works Standard Drawing STD - 160 -L -C 3. Project plans FAUSERSM,WharedlPAWAs - 20071PA2007- 176WD2008-020 perpt FINALdoc )3