Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutYU-Chien Liao (PA2005-292) 15 Vista TramontoCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 May 18, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2005 -135 (PA 2005 -292) 15 Vista Tramonto APPELLANT & APPLICANT: Yu -Chien Liao BACKGROUND On February 13, 2006, the Zoning Administrator denied Modification Permit No. 2005- 135 requesting the retention of over height walls, pilasters and gate within the required front yard setback of a property located at 15 Vista Tramonto. The applicant specifically requested a modification to allow the retention of an as -built wrought iron gate (8 -feet tall), combination block wall and wrought iron fence (overall 6- to 7 -feet tall) and related pilasters (7 -feet tall) that encroach 7 to 9 feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback where the Zoning Code limits such heights to a maximum of 3 -feet 6- inches. The site plan for the proposed development is attached as Exhibit 1 and photographs of the as -built development have been attached as Exhibit 2. After reviewing the applicant's request, the Zoning Administrator determined that the applicant did not provide adequate justification to support the encroachment and cited several findings supporting the denial of the request. The denial letter has been attached as Exhibit 3. The subject gate and walls were constructed in 2003 without the benefit of proper building permits or review. The applicant claims that prior to constructing the gates and walls, she tried to obtain approval from the County of Orange (the permitting jurisdiction at the time); however, she contends that County staffed indicated that her project did not require a variance (staff cannot verify this statement). The applicant admits that she then neglected to verify that proper building permits were pursued by her contractor who constructed the project. On February 27, 2006, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. MD 2005 -135 Appeal May 18, 2006 Page 2 vicinity M D MD 2005 -135 Appeal May 18, 2006 Page 3 DISCUSSION Appeal The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the application and approve the original request. The appellant contends that the findings required to approve the modification can be made and provided the following justification with her application: The current 10 -foot setback code requirement for front yards does not allow enough space for building a wall /fence on the property. There are quite a few properties in the neighborhood that have the same or similar settings of gate and fence. The heights and finishes of wall, pilasters, and fence are compatible with the architecture and blends in. The extension of side walls is preferable to neighbors on both sides because it provides more privacy for them. For the front gate and fence, there is a 3 -foot planting area along the sidewalk to provide a buffer with pedestrians. The applicant's original letter of justification outlines the arguments in support of the above conclusions. This letter is attached as Exhibit 4. Section 20.95 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 20.95.060 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo ", meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the prior decision or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Property Characteristics The lot is relatively rectangular in shape (with the exception of the skew at the rear) and it measures 10,650 square feet in area. The lot averages approximately 127 feet in depth and 85 feet in width. The existing house is setback from the front property line approximately 44 -feet 4- inches and the garage is setback approximately 11 -feet from the front property line. The garage is a side entry 3 -car garage and vehicular access is accommodated through a 16 -foot wide driveway and a 32 -foot wide motorcourt. Single family properties are located directly adjacent to the north and south of the property and association common area is located directly east and west of the site. Zoning The subject property is located within the Newport Coast Planned Community District (NPC -PC Planning Area 2A -1). The Newport Coast Planned Community text contains the development standards for planning areas within the zoning district and requires a MD 2005 -135 Appeal May 18, 2006 Page 4 minimum 10 -foot building setback from any property line abutting a public or private street. Accessory structures, including fences and walls, are subject to the development standards contained within Section 7 -9 -137 of the Orange County Zoning Code. The OC Zoning Code specifically limits the height of fences and walls within the front setback area bordering a street to a maximum height of 3 %z -feet. Analysis Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the following three findings to be made for the approval of a Modification Permit: The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. To make this finding, it must be shown that the property has some practical difficulty or constraint that when combined with the strict application of the 10 -foot front yard setback creates a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the purpose of the code. Setback modifications can be appropriate for exceptionally small or irregularly shaped lots that do not meet current lot standards or for lots where topography severely limits proposed development. It is staffs opinion that the lot in question does not possess these physical characteristics as the lot is flat and the front property line is straight and does not create a unique difficulty. Adequate space exists within the buildable area of this lot and a 10 -foot setback is a minimal restriction given the large size of the lot. It is therefore staffs belief that this finding can not be made. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The purpose of this finding is to ensure that the granting of the modification will not result in development that is out of character with existing development in the neighborhood. The residence is located within a gated community and a majority of the residences do not have separate entry gates and front yard walls. There are a few residences in the neighborhood that have constructed walls and gates which comply with the height restrictions within the 10 -foot setback (Exhibit 5). However, approximately six properties in the neighborhood have constructed walls and gates that do not comply with the height restrictions; one in particular at 24 Via Burrone has constructed an entry gate system very similar to the applicant's request (Exhibit 6). Staff has been told that the original builder of the neighborhood controlled the early Homeowner's Architectural Committee and approved several of the 21 MD 2005 -135 Appeal May 18, 2006 Page 5 nonconforming walls not knowing of the 3 1/2 -foot height restriction. Additionally, staff has attempted to locate building permits and plans for the construction of the walls and gates; however, the County has only been able to transfer and locate building permits with vague descriptions of the walls. Staff is unsure whether the permits include the construction of the entry gates and walls or whether they are for the property line walls surrounding the side and rear of the lots. The County, to date, has been unable to locate the actual building plans associated with these permits and therefore the staff has been unable to verify whether or not the nonconforming walls were ever reviewed or inspected by the County. Staff has been informed that the current Homeowner's Association Architectural Committee is now comprised of actual homeowner's in the neighborhood and has maintained a position to not approve walls or gates that do not comply with the 3 %rfoot height restrictions within the 10 -foot front yard setback. Additionally, they had originally advised the applicant to not construct the wall without requesting a modification from the City, yet the applicant continued to construct the wall, even after they property management company issued a "cease and stop work" notice. A letter received from a homeowner in the neighborhood (and member of the Architectural Committee) has been attached as Exhibit 7 and summarizes the history of the walls in the community and his opposition to the project. Staff believes the as -built entry gate system is not compatible with the existing development of the other residences on Vista Tramonto or residences in the neighborhood. Compatibility to similar nonconforming gates and walls in the neighborhood is not adequate justification for the development, and staff is unsure whether the County adequately reviewed the development of these structures. It is therefore staffs belief that this finding can not be made. 3. 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 improvements in the neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator determined that that the granting of the application for walls and gates closer to the front property line than other properties in the neighborhood would adversely affect the safety of persons residing in the neighborhood and that it would be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to the properties in the neighborhood that generally comply with zoning regulations because the approval could set a precedent for the approval of similar requests. Although the gates and upper portion of walls were constructed of wrought iron for increased visibility, staff believes the location of the fence and tall solid pilasters in close proximity to the sidewalk creates an unnecessary safety hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists as vehicles pull out of the driveway. MD 2005 -135 Appeal May 18, 2006 Page 6 Additionally, site distance visibility for the neighboring residents exiting their driveways is also reduced. It is therefore staffs belief that this finding can not be made. Environmental Review The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold and affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny Modification Permit No. 2005- 135. This action will require the property owner to either remove the nonconforming walls, pilasters and gate, or obtain a building permit to reconstruct the walls, pilasters, and gate to conform to the applicable development regulations of the County Zoning Code and Newport Coast Planned Community District. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the option to: 1. Approve the applicant's original Modification Permit request. 2. Modify and approve the applicant's Modification Permit request as deemed necessary. Prepared by: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Submitted by: p 2 . . Patricia L. Temple, P nning Director MD 2005 -135 Appeal May 18, 2006 Page 7 EXHIBITS 1. As -Built Plans 2. Project Photographs 3. Modification Denial Letter 4. Applicant's Justification Letter 5. Photographs of Conforming Walls 6. Photographs of Nonconforming Walls 7. Letter of Opposition a �.� �� �' � :JIIIIIIIIIIIIIII���IE i� has \3 EXHIBIT 2 Project Photgraphs N� aJ r -x >. �!• i5 `� EXHIBIT 3 Modification Denial Letter 11 February 13, 2006 MODIFICATION NO. MD2005 -135 (PA2005 -292) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 6443200 FAX (949) 644 -3229 Yu -Chien Liao c/o Land Vision Landscape Architecture 305 N. Coast Highway, Suite T Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date Application No: Modification Permit No. MD2005 -135 (PA2005 -292) Applicant: Yu -Chien Liao Address of Property Involved: 15 Vista Tramonto Legal Description: Lot 17, Tract 14070 Request Denied in its Entirety Request to permit the retention of a wrought iron gate (8 -feet tall), combination block wall & wrought iron fence (overall 6- to 7 -feet tall) and related pilasters (7 -feet tall) that encroach 7 to 9 feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback where the Zoning Code limits that height to a maximum of 3 -feet 6- inches. The property is located in the PC (Newport Coast Planned Community, Planning Area 2A -1) District. On February 13. 2006, the Zoning Administrator disapproved the subject application and made the following conditions and findings for denial: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL The Zoning Administrator determined, in this case, the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Newport Coast Planned Community development regulations. Aa 2. The applicant did not provide reasonable justification demonstrating that the granting of this application was necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property. In addition, there was not adequate justification as to why the strict application of the Newport Ridge /Newport Coast Planned Community District regulations and the Zoning Code results in physical hardships inconsistent with the purpose and intent of those codes. 3. The justification submitted did not adequately address why the encroaching structure is more compatible than the wall and gates in a conforming location. The Zoning Administrator determined that the location of the as -built structures is not compatible with other walls and gates constructed on other properties and development in the neighborhood and in particular on the same street (Vista Tramonto). 4. The Zoning Administrator determined that the granting of the application for walls and gates, closer to the front property line than on other properties in the neighborhood, would adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and would be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood that generally comply with the zoning regulations. The approval of the proposed could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests which could be detrimental to the neighborhood. 6. There is no justification for allowing the since adequate space exists within the of the walls, pilasters and gate. proposed wall and gate encroachments, buildable area of the site for construction 7. Residential sites adjoining the subject property generally maintain the required front yard setback. Within 30 days after the effective date of this action, property owner or authorized representative shall obtain a building permit to remove or reconstruct the walls, pilasters and gate to conform to the requirements of the development regulations of the Zoning Code and Newport Coast Planned Community District. APPEAL PERIOD The Zoning Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by 5pm on February 27, 2006. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of 570.00. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at 949.644.3200. February 13, 2006 1:\USERS \PLMShared \PA's \PAs - 2005 \PA2005 - 292 \MD2005 -135 Deny.doc Page 2 AI C Zoning Adroinistratorvavier S. Garcia, AICP JSG:jjb Attachments: Vicinity Map Applicant's letter of justification Letter in opposition c: Cynthia and Kyle Yin (property owners) 15 Vista Tramonto Newport Coast, CA 92657 A. Trider of 21 Via Palladio appeared in opposition. No appearances in support. February 13, 2006 1:\USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2005 \PA2005- 292\MD2005 -135 Deny.doc Page 3 a' Modification Permit No. MD2005 -135 PA2005 -292 15 Vista Tramonto a3 EXHIBIT 4 Applicant's Justification Letter a4 Cynthia and Kyle Yin 15 Vista Tramonto Newport Coast, CA 92657 February 13, 2006 Attn: Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach Planning Department Newport Beach, CA Re: Modification Application- Justifications for the built Gate and Wall/ Fence One of the uniqueness of houses in this community is that they are relatively larger scale. We think installing larger driveway with gate and wall/ fence will enhance the grandness of the architecture, which we can see by the high percentage of homes with vehicular access gate and wall/ fence along the perimeters of these properties. After analyzing the elevations and visual effects of all design alternatives, we think that the gate and wall/ fence being pushed out fiuther will be more proportionally sound. There were a few examples in the neighborhood that were completed earlier had the same opinion (See attached photos). Regarding the setback issues, the shortest distance from our house to the property line is 15'. In order to have minimum 3' walkway to the sideyard and 2' minimum planting space along the building, we only have approximately 9' to provide more planting space after the wall/ fence is built. The approach we chose is to leave enough space for tree planting between the wall/ fence and the house vs. the wall/ fence to the sidewalk This way we actually reduce the possibility of tree roots damaging the public sidewalk. On the other hand we think the approach of low wall with fence is still more friendly, inviting and connected to the community than a 6' high solid wall with 10' setback. In terms of safety concern, we also think the low wall with fence is better because it provides more visibility for the pedestrian and the driver to see each other before coming through the gate. One other technical reason we have the gate and wall/ fence encroached fiuther into the setback zone is allow enough turning radius into the first garage door. Our neighbors on both sides also prefer to extend the sidewall out as much as possible because of privacy issue. During the design period, they had expressed more needs of privacy than we did. In fact, to this day they still have been requesting us to plant more tall trees along the back/ side yard perimeter wall so to provide more screening. I propose to use more sofiscape if necessary instead of tearing down the hardscapes as thell way of modifying existing condition. Sincerely, hien Liao ;5 EXHIBIT 5 Photographs of Conforming Walls I sz a {tom ids so I sp I EXHIBIT 6 Photographs of Nonconforming Walls M E EXHIBIT 7 Letter of Opposition 3� 0 Edo,' ) 41 CaQ� hl P✓� 00-5--,2 eez . .... ar- / XT � r _ C q�lg 3t�����,ar�✓ 1 i 6 I/ ZO 'd i Ad 60;10 NOW 9002 -90 -BE S5 '3 J r- ,rr l A . ' � f Y RE pR �p�pAR�BEpGN o 440 �qp�1�12112�g1g,6 EO 'd Wd 60;10 NOW 9002- 90 -03d 36