Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - PA2001-173 - Brown Duplex - 405 Dahlia Avenuea E°'PpT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: May14, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 21 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell °'�c,ronr�T NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Brown Duplex (PA2001 -173) 405 Dahlia Avenue SUMMARY: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a finding of substantial conformance related to a previously approved project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. APPLICANT: Jeffrey Brown, property owner Background On April 18, 2002, the Planning Commission considered and denied a request to modify the garage access of the proposed project. The item was also considered by the Commission on April 4, 2002 and March 21, 2002. The minutes from these three meetings are attached as Exhibit No. 1. The applicant filed an appeal of this decision on April 24, 2002 requesting that the City Council reverse the decision of the Commission, and approve the modification to the approved project (Exhibit No. 2). The project consists of the demolition of a single family residence and the construction of a 5,440 square foot duplex at 405 Dahlia Avenue. A Variance that authorized additional floor area above the floor area limit and the Modification Permit allowing a reduction of the required rear yard setback was approved by the Planning Commission on January 3, 2002 (Exhibit No. 3). The approved plan had two, 2 -car garages accessed from a driveway that would be created along the northern property line, as the property does not have alley access. The northerly eight feet of the proposed 20 -foot wide driveway was on the neighbor's property. Project approval required a reciprocal access easement be created for the use of the driveway by both properties. The applicant and the neighboring property owner have not come to an agreement about the reciprocal access easement, and the applicant has concluded that the agreement is not forthcoming. Due to the inability to develop the plan as approved, the applicant redesigned the garages to take direct access from Dahlia Avenue. The letter requesting the change in the project is attached as Exhibit No. 4. The change was deemed significant enough by staff to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. The redesigned plans are attached as Exhibit No. 5. The reoriented garages are in a tandem configuration with the doors facing Dahlia Avenue. The footprint and area of the modified design remains the same as previously authorized. The approved garage plan is depicted on Sheets 1 and 2 and the proposed tandem orientation is shown on Sheet 1. The applicant is proposing the use of Grasscrete® for the paving surface of the driveway to mitigate the loss of the landscaping that would have been provided with the approved plan. A description and specifications for Grasscrete® is attached to the applicant's request (Exhibit No. 4). The Planning Commission felt that the modified design is not in substantial conformance with the approved plan and does not represent the best design. Several reasons were noted for this finding: the introduction of tandem parking, loss of landscaping in the front yard and the inability to provide a new parking space on the street. Three Commissioners believe that the revised plan was the best alternative to the approved plan given the circumstances. Discussion Denial of the proposed redesign requires the applicant to obtain an agreement with his neighbor or redesign the project further. The applicant's redesigned garage access plan is the simplest solution from the applicant's perspective as it represents the least amount of project redesign. One benefit from the revised plan is that it provides for guest parking and access to the neighbor's lot. The revised plan also provides for the ability to implement the previously approved plan if an agreement between the two property owners is reached in the future. Redesign of the garage and access could include a 4 -car garage directly accessible from the street or a tandem garage configuration similar to the applicant's request but located 8 feet further to the north. Recommendation Should the City Council choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends that the Council modify the following conditions of approval. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans revised and dated February 18, 2002 or December 19, 2001 except as revised by other conditions of approval. The architectural style and quality shall be substantially as set forth in the plans dated August 21, 2001. 13. 77te owner shall provide the City Building Department with a recorded reciprocal access agreement between the subject property and the abutting property to the west if vehicular access to the garages is to be taken from the northerly driveway. 77ds agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall be recorded prior to issuance of arty grading-er building permits to modify the garage access. 15. Me existing unused portion of the drive approach on Dahlia Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. If vehicular access to the garages is modified in the future to take access from the northerly driveway, the property owner shall reduce the width of the drive approach to match the on -site driveway. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner J0 I, Brown Duplex (PA2001 -173)) May 14, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Exhibits 1. Excerpt of Minutes from April 18', April 4" and March 21, 2002. 2. Appeal filed April 24, 2002. I Resolution No. 1546 approving Variance No. 2001 -004 and Modification No. 2001 -098 4. Letter from the applicant requesting revision to project 5. Revised Plans Brown Duplex (PA2001 -173)) May 14, 2002 3 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit No. 1 Excerpt of Minutes from April 18'x', April 4' and March 21, 2002. s' City of Newport Beach DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2002 INDEX SUBJECT: Brown Duplex Item 1 405 Dahlia Avenue PA2001 -173 • (PA2001 -173) Substantial conformance review related to reorientation of the garages. Denied Chairperson Tucker noted that this item had been reviewed at the last two meetings with no consensus. Commissioner Kiser noted he had missed the last two meetings but listened to the March 21st tape when this matter was discussed; and he had reviewed the minutes of the April 4m meeting on this matter as well. Continuing, he noted that the question before the Commission Is whether the revised plans substantially conform to the approved plans. In that regard, he stated: • Changes in the plan now are that the cars will enter and exit the garages from the east side of the property instead of the north side of the property. • Access will be directly from the street instead of over a recorded reciprocal access agreement with a neighbor. • Parking in the garages is now tandem, instead of side by side. This alone I consider a substantial change from the prior plans. • We will lose one on- street parking space, which would have been gained from the prior plan. • Landscaping will be lost from the east side of the property, even though the applicant Is suggesting he would do some type of 'Grass Crete' treatment there. • The staff report acknowledges the previously approved plan, 'is arguably the more superior plan,' than the plan we are being asked to find tonight In substantial conformance. • How can you find this to be In substantial conformance while at each juncture with the things I have mentioned, the answer is no? • The revised plan is not an insignificant change of a plan that substantially conforms with the approved plan. • Finding this plan in substantial conformance would set a precedent and send a signal to staff that they could find plans re- submitted by an applicant after Planning Commission approval, which significantly differ, as this one does, from the approved plans. • This would be a dangerous precedent to set and a bad decision. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser that the revised plan is not in conformance with the plan that had been approved. Chairperson Tucker noted that with the involvement of the neighbor, the good faith effort of the applicant and the fact that the standards by which we review substantial conformance I think are not as stringent as the granting of the variance in the first place. I would support the substantial conformance finding, as a certain amount of it has to do with compassion with the circumstance. I don't think It is a great affront to the findings that we need to make, I do believe it City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 18, 2002 will be expensive for the applicant to go back and take advantage of the variance that he still has. Looking at the circumstances, I think we ought to find for substantial conformance and move on. Ayes: Kiser, Agajanian, Kranzley Noes: Tucker, Gifford Excused: McDaniel Absent: Selich Hyatt Newporter 1107 Jamboree Road • Use Permit No. 2001 -031 (PA 2001 -180) A reque to permanently include the Summer Jazz Series as an annually recurring event, an ' ary to the normal operations of the existing resort hotel facility. Ms. Temple st d that this project does not include pavilion events nor anything associated with e 4 day Jass festival, which occurs in the springtime. Commissioner Kranz] noted the Noise Ordinance states that you should not be able to hear 100 feet fr the source of the sound, which would mean that if you are in the back row of th mpitheater you would not be able to hear the music. I think we need to find a m e rational and logical noise measurement. I am in support of this project, how ver, I believe we need to look ate the Noise Ordinance. Ms. Temple noted her agreement acing that amplified sound and does not apply to coustica was geared towards certain types of am\he is somewhat outdated and in some circu in working with the City Attorney's office, and it is a matter of finding the staff reso review of Chapter 10.32 and Chapters in Title 5. one audibility standard Is on I instruments. That old standard that occur within buildings and s not enforceable. I agree and Identified a number of changes j time to actually accomplish a Commissioner Kiser asked if we were to approve this UX permit tonight and if it directly conflicts with our Chapter 10.32 paragraph D abo the not being audible in excess of 100 feet from the sound amplifying equipment. hese two things are true, can we override this, or am I missing something? Ms. Temple answered that you don't override a Municipal Code p vision with a use permit, however, this is the aspect of this particualar provision ft4pt in some cicumstances may not be enforceable at all. What the noise report attaTpted to do was to show that in every other way, this permit is consistent with a of the other provisions of the code and concluded in the end that if any of the o]se becomes to the point where it is considered loud and unreasonable based n Title 10.28, that the City has the authority to order cessation immediately and Th this was sufficient protection. INDEX Item 2 PA 2001 -180 Approved 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 FILE COPY SUBJECT: Brown Duplex 405 Dahlia Avenue (PA2001 -173) Substantial conformance review related to reorientation of the garages. Chairperson Tucker noted that this Item had been reviewed at the last meeting with no consensus. The applicant requested a continuance. Commissioner Selich noted he would support the substantial conformance as the best solution and that it still leaves the issue open to turning the garages around for an easy conversion in the future. Commissioner Kranzley stated he is not in support of this, as he does not support tandem parking. Commissioner Gifford stated she is in support of the finding of substantial conformance. Commissioner Agajanian noted his opposition. Commissioner McDaniel noted his opposition. Andrew Goetz, speaking for the applicant, noted that the applicant has worked with the neighbor in good faith. The plan can be engineered with headers so that it can be converted back to the original plan. Mr. Brown will continue to extend the opportunity to a future purchaser of that property. Commissioner Kranzley noted that this is a granting of a variance for an additional amount of square footage on this property. The variance that I approved did not have tandem parking. Tandem parking is problematic and does not satisfy the off - street parking for a cul-de -sac. Not every use in Corona del Mar came in for a variance for additional square footage as well. Mr. Brown can make a smaller footprint, make a change to the design of the house and still accommodate more off - street parking, but the applicant has chosen to go for the additional square footage. Chairperson Tucker asked if the applicant's representative would like a continuance. Mr. Goetz answered yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to April 18, 2002. Ayes: Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel Excused: Kiser X11174 Item 1 PA2001 -173 Continued to 04/18/2002 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 2002 INDEX 'SUBJECT: Brumbaugh Residence Item 5 201 Apoleno Avenue PA2002 -001 (PA2002 -001) Requefor a Variance to exceed the established floor area limit and a Continued to Modificd6Q Permit to encroach 15 feet Into the required 20 -foot front yard setback: 04/04/2002 7 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback: and 6 feet, 10 inches into the setback along ApolencrA venue, for a new single -family dwelling. Ms. Temple reported that this item is to be continued, at the applicant's request, to April 4, 2002. `4 �aa,, Motion was made by Co`irnmissioner McDaniel to continue this item to April 4, 2002 as requested by the applicant. Ayes: McDaniel, AgajanPan, Tucker, Gifford Noes: None Excused: Kiser, Kranzley, Selich SUBJECT. Mortazavl Triplex (PA2001 -193) Item 6 1324 W. Balboa Boulevard PA2001 -193 (PA2001 -193) ee asfing Request for an addition and alteration of an nonconforming triplex. The Continued to existing fiplex is nonconforming due to the fact tha, It Is located in the R -2 District 04 /04/2002 where two dwelling units are the maximum allowed. The triplex is also nonconforming in that the property provides only three parking spaces where the Zoning Ordnance requires a minimum of six spaces (2 per 4). Ms. Temple reported that this item is to be continued, at the applicant's request, to April 4, 2002. y `N Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item �o April 4, 2002 as requested by the applicant. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford Noes: None Excused: Kiser, Kranzley, Selich •an SUBJECT: Brown Duplex I Item 7 405 Dahlia Avenue PA2001 -173 • (PA2001 -173) Substantial conformance review related to reorientation of the garages. Continued to 04/04/2002 FILE COPY City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 2002 Chairperson Tucker noted this Item had been before the Commission twice and approved on a variance. All that is before us at this time Is whether a change to the orientation of the garages Is in substantial conformance with what the Commission had granted. Commissioner Agaianian noted his opposition stating that tandem parking is not an acceptable solution. Commissioner McDaniel noted his vote carries a substantial burden due to the absence of 3 Commissioners. Continuing, he noted: • Variances are not to be given based on what another applicant has received. • This applicant has come back to us without reducing anything; he has just switched things around a bit. • 1 don't like the project, but I want to be fair and not turn this down without listening to the rest of the Commissioners. • At the last meeting on this, the Commission did not want the tandem parking and was concerned with the orientation. Chairperson Tucker agreed that this is not the preferred configuration. There was a neighbor who was all for this project initially, then at the second hearing was not quite as enthusiastic and now, she does not appear to be for it at all. The Commission based their planning on what we heard as we went along. The topography of the lot means the garage will have to be in that area and I am not sure what else is available to the applicant. Commissioner Gifford agreed it is not the preferred solution. This was a subject of considerable debate and it might be in the applicant's best interest, and the community's best interest, to have this item continued until the full Commission can hear it. Commissioner McDaniel noted he would be much more comfortable with that because there was a lot of discussion about the orientation of the garages. Much of the conversation took place in terms of the neighbor to Initially approve this. I would be much more comfortable with my vote if the full Commission got a chance to discuss this and look at it. Chairperson Tucker asked the applicant if he wanted a vote or a continuance. Mr. Jeff Brown, applicant of 405 Dahlia Avenue, noted the following: • This is the third time before the Commission and it has been a twelve- month process. • I have heard enthusiastic support, then support as long as the doors were not there, etc. • Has Incurred significant costs. • I am getting fatigued with trying to go ahead with my project. • 1 have tried to be as cooperative as possible about this project, both with staff and my neighbor. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 2002 1 have shared with staff what my neighbor has said. • 1 can go through any detail questions on this project. • * I think the proposed project is better for her than it is for me. Chairperson Tucker noted that the applicant has done everything that could be done and has redesigned it in good faith. He noted his support of finding the revised project in substantial conformance. There were some design goals that we all had in mind and I think the structure will be in the right place. Mr. Brown asked what the ramifications would be. The people that are not here may have voted in the affirmative and may be more sympathetic to it. Chairperson Tucker stated that he would ask for a straw vote and if the Commission is not with you, then ask for a continuance so that you would come back to the Commission rather than the Council and try to educate seven new people on what your issues are. You could demand a vote tonight, and if you are denied, you would have to appeal it. You would need three votes. Mr. Brown then asked for a straw vote, noting that the market has worked for him but that he is doing this as part of an upleg of a 1031 exchange and is in a real jam. Commissioner McDaniel suggested that the applicant continue this item. Chairperson Tucker then asked for a straw vote: Commissioner McDaniel - suggested it would be in his best interest to not count on his vote this evening and to continue this to the next time. Commissioner Agajanian - noted his opposition to the project. Commissioner Gifford - noted she would vote against the project if it were brought for a vote tonight. That doesn't represent necessarily her vote on the project if the entire Commission was present. Mr. Brown then asked for a continuance. Chairperson Tucker answered that there will be seven members here. Mr. Brown accepted the continuance to April 4m. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to April 4, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanfan, Tucker, Gifford Noes: None Excused: Kiser, Kranzley, Selich INDEX !2 Exhibit No. 2 Appeal filed April 24, 2002. 13 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r_ 7 Application No. Variance No. n No: MD2001 -0W APR 24 P i :cii Name of Appellant or person filing: Jeffrey Brown Address: 2707 Windover Drive, Corona Del Mar, Date of Planning Commission decision: April 18 Regarding application of: Jeffrey Brown (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) Phone:- -. (9149T.64Q- $4P0.pr. CA 92625 2002 for Substantial conformance review related to re- orientation of garages on previously approved plans (Resolution #1546, dated January 3, 2002). Situation is accurately and fairly described in Jim Campbell's March 21, 2002 two paged "Report to Planning Commission" (see attached copy). Reasons for Appeal: In three meetings, the Planning Commission was evenly split on this issue (March 21 the count was 2 to 2 .... April 4 the count was 3 to 3...April 18 the count was 3 to 3). The actual vote on April 18`" was 3 to 2 due to the late arrival of one member... who therefore did not vote, but was positive in previous meetings. If all the Commissioners were present, there would have been 3 in favor, 4 against. Chairman Larry Tucker was favorable to my substantial conformance review on all three occasions. I believe the same reasons and logic that Chairman Tucker used in his decision are still relevant and will be considered by the City Council at this time. I strongly feel that the proposed minor change is substantially conformant to the previously approved plans, dated January 3, 2003 (see attached approval). Furthermore, upon closer examination, I humbly believe the City Council: will likewise conclude that I have no other feasible o tion available to me as a homeowner wishing to exercise my property rights and develop a project that will be a significant upgrade to the neighborhood. At the three Planning Commission meeting previously cited, there were no opposing views voiced by any neighbor or member of toe communi . I am presently unaware of any party or neighbor who is opposed to my current substantial conformance reouAt. // Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY _V Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: , P /\ a- 20 O 2. Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20.95.050) cc: Appellant Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File 15 APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0406 Appeal Fee: $298 pursuant to Resolution No. 2001 -46 adopted on 6 -26 -01 (eff. 711/01) (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) P °M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH $ PLANNING DEPARTMENT a y? 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 SUMMARY: RECOMMENDED: ACTION: APPLICANT: 644 -3229 Brown Duplex (PA2001 -173) 405 Dahlia Avenue Hearing Date: Agenda Item: Staff Person: Y 7 James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 Substantial conformance review related to reorientation of the garages. Determine that the revised site plan and floor plans are in substantial conformance with the previously approved project. Jeffrey Brown, property owner On January 3, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 2001 -004 and Modification No. 2001 -098 for the construction of a 5,440 square foot duplex (Exhibit No. 1). The Variance authorized additional floor area above the floor area limit and the Modification allowed a reduction of the required rear yard setback. The approved plan had two, 2-car garages accessed from an expanded driveway that would be created along the northern property line. The northerly eight feet of the proposed 20 -foot wide driveway was on the neighbor's property. Project approval required a reciprocal access easement be created for the use of the driveway by both properties. The applicant and the neighboring property owner have not come to an agreement about the reciprocal access easement, and the applicant has concluded that an agreement is not forthcoming. Therefore, the applicant cannot fulfill the conditions of approval with the approved plan (Exhibit No. 2). The applicant has redesigned the garages to take direct access from Dahlia Avenue (Exhibit No. 4). The garages are in a tandem orientation with the doors facing Dahlia Avenue. The footprint and area of the modified design remains the same as previously authorized. The applicant is proposing the use of GrasscreteO for the paving surface of the driveway to mitigate the loss of the landscaping that would have been provided with the approved plan. Grasscrete® is a cast -in- place, monolithic, porous concrete pavement that is continuously reinforced to provide structural integrity. After the concrete is sufficiently hardened, the voids are filled with topsoil and grass, thus providing a free draining "pavement" with the structural capacity to handle most heavy vehicle loads (Exhibit No. 3). lb The applicant is maintaining the 12 -foot side yard setback to the north for the garage. This area will be paved with concrete and the applicant does not plan to construct a fence along the northern property line. In essence, the 20 -foot driveway will remain unobstructed. These features will preserve the opportunity to re -orient the garages to the northern driveway if in the future the applicant or future owner and the neighbor come to an agreement on the reciprocal easement. The paved 12 -foot side yard can also be used for guest parking, recreational vehicle parking or boat parking. These uses of the setback area might be expected with the applicant's re- designed access plan. One additional change to the overall project will be the inability to reduce the width of the drive approach enough to create a new on- street parking space. Recommendation The applicant's redesigned garage access plan is the simplest solution from the applicant's perspective as the rest of the project remains the same. The revised plan provides for guest parking and access to the neighbor's lot. Lastly, the revised plan provides the ability to implement the previously approved plan, which is arguably the more superior plan, if an agreement between the two property owners is reached in the future. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modified design and adopt a minute action making the following changes to the Conditions of approval in Resolution 1546: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and.floor plans revised and dated February 18, 2002 or December 19, 2001 except as revised by other conditions of approval. The architectural style and quality shall be substantially as set forth in the plans dated August 21, 2001. 13. The owner shall provide the City Building Department with a recorded reciprocal access agreement between the subject property and the abutting property to the west if vehicular access to the garages is to be taken from the northerly driveway. This agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any grwdinger building permits to modify the garage access. 15. The existing unused portion of the drive approach on Dahlia Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. If vehicular access to the garages is modified in the future to take access from the northerly driveway, the property owner shall reduce the width of the drive approach to match the on -site driveway. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director 0 01 CAS Exhibits �. Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner �y l/JGUi"V , `�6 Brown Duplex (PA2001 -173)) March 21, 2002 Page 2 of 3 11' Exhibit No. 3 Resolution No. 1546 approving Variance No. 2001 -004 & Modification No. 2001 -098 if RESOLUTION NO. 1546 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING A VARIANCE NO. 2001-004 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2001-098. (PA2001 -173). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was duly filed by the Applicant, Jeffrey Brown with respect to property located at 405 Dahlia Avenue (PA2001 -173) and legally described as a portion of Lot Nos. 3, 5 & 7 of Block 331 of the Corona del Mar Tract, requesting approval of a variance to permit a duplex to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit applicable within Corona del Mar (VA2001 -004). The application also includes a request to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5' -0" (MD2001 -098). Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on November 8, 2001 and January 3, 2002, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meetings. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The location of the property without alley access and its larger width creates a larger rear yard and front yard setback area that has the effect of disproportionately reducing the buildable area of the property below that enjoyed by identically zoned properties in the area. The typical Corona del Mar comparable size to the project site has a percentage of gross floor area to lot area of 100.4 %. The same percentage for the subject lot without approval of the variance is 81.87 %. Due to these factors, the property is deprived of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The granting of the additional floor area is necessary for the applicant to enjoy a similar and substantial property right which is to develop a residential project that is proportionately consistent, based upon lot size, with other properties in the area and under identical zoning requirements. It c) That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The approval of the additional floor area is consistent with the intent of the code that is to preserve property values and create design compatibility of proposed projects with surroundings. The increased floor area is necessary for the applicant to create a residential project that is proportionately consistent in size, based upon lot size, with other properties in the area and subject to the same zoning requirements. The typical Corona del Mar lot of comparable size to the project site has a percentage of gross floor area to lot area of 100.4 %. The same percentage for the subject lot without approval of the variance is 81.87 %. The applicant proposes a 5,100 sq. ft. building which has a gross floor area to lot area percentage of 97.9%. The approval of this increase in floor area is below the percentage of gross floor area to lot area enjoyed by other properties and therefore does not constitute the granting of a special privilege. The additional area approved for the enclosure of the carport creating a second two -car garage is necessary for the project to be compatible with and not detrimental to the abutting property located at 407 Dahlia Avenue. This is due to the close proximity of that portion of the building if designed as a carport and a belief that it would negatively impact the entry area of the residence located at 407 Dahlia Avenue. This additional area for the carport enclosure is non - habitable. Due to these factors, the granting of the additional area for the second garage does not constitute the granting of a special privilege. d) That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance for additional floor area will not be detrimental to surrounding property or the city as it does not increase the density of development permitted by the General Plan. The project will provide the required off - street parking spaces in accordance with the Zoning Code. A portion of the floor area increase is necessary to avoid a potentially detrimental situation with an open carport located in close proximity to the entry of the abutting residence located at 407 Dahlia Avenue. The portion of the increased area is devoted to garage spaces and will not increase the occupancy of the structure, as it is non- habitable. e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, 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 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 this code for the following reasons: ZZ • The rear yard encroachments, as depicted on the revised plans, is similar to a side yard relationship that is allowed to be setback 4 feet from the property line and 8 feet between buildings. The proposed encroachments that are not less than 5 feet from the abutting property and are limited in area. The proposed encroachment of parking spaces are required to be enclosed garage spaces as opposed to being open carports. The enclosure of the spaces eliminates a potential detrimental situation due to the close proximity of the spaces and the abutting property. The proposed encroachments do not effect the views from nearby properties and the project complies with applicable height limits. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves an amendment to Variance No. 2001 -004 and Modification No. 2001 -098, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2002. AYES: Kiser,, Tucker Gifford, Kranzley and Selich NOES: _mcDaniel, Agaianian ABSENT: BY: � Lany Tucker, Chairman Ear McDaniel, Secretary 13 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Variance No. 2001 -004 & Modification No. 2001 -098 1. - The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plans revised and dated December 19, 2001 except as revised by other conditions of approval. The architectural style and quality shall be substantially as set forth in the plans dated August 21, 2001. 2. The Variance No. 2001 -004 and Modification No. 2001 -098 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 if the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The project shall comply with applicable structure and building height regulations contained within Chapter 20.65 of the Municipal Code. 4. The applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from the Building Department. 5. Stair access within the side yards is required to bedroom windows if required by the Building Department. 6. The lower level shall comply with the Uniform Building Code definition of a basement otherwise the project shall provide 2 stairways for exiting purposes for each unit from the third and fourth floors to grade. 1. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system as the building exceeds 5,000 square feet in area. 8. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 10. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. Jq 12. On -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to fitrther review by the Traffic Engineer. 13. The owner shall provide the City Building Department with a recorded reciprocal access agreement between the subject property and the abutting property to the west. This agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 14. The footings for the proposed property line retaining walls shall be designed so that their footings remain on private property and will not encroach into the public right -of -way. 15. The existing unused portion of the drive approach on Dahlia Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 16. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. 17. 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. 18. The project shall be consistent with the design originally submitted in terms of material and style as depicted on the elevation drawings dated August 21, 2001. 19. The carport depicted on the approved plans shall be enclosed creating a garage. The width of the garage, in conjunction with the approved site plan and floor plans shall be no larger than necessary while providing a 15 -foot front yard setback and a 5 -foot rear yard setback. The depth of the garage shall not exceed the depth depicted on the approved floor plan identified in Condition No. 1. 20. The second level deck located above the carport depicted on the site and floor plans dated December 19, 2001 shall be reduced in size or eliminated. A reduced deck shall not extend northwest of the adjacent bathroom depicted on the approved plan. 21. The gross floor area of the project shall not exceed 5,100 square feet plus an additional amount of floor area necessary to enclose the 2 -car carport as described in Condition No. 19. The garage depicted on the site and floor plans dated December 19, 2001 shall be included in the 5,100 square feet figure cited in this resolution. L \U S ERS\PLN1 Shared lPA's1PA2001- 173\resolution.doc A5 Exhibit No. 4 Letter from the applicant requesting revision to project 1 �" 405 Dahlia Street • Corona Del Mar • CA • 92625 February 19, 2002 Jim Campbell City of Newport Beach Re: Variance No. 2001 -004 and Modificaton No. 2001 -098 Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY (1F NpArpnor nr_A:,F- AM FEB 19 2002 PM 718181101111121112131416 t6 Thank you for your continued support and patience with me and my project at 405 Dahlia Avenue. Due to reasons and circumstances beyond my control, I am unable to fulfill condition numbers 13 and 15 of approved Variance number 2001 -004 (copy of Resolution attached for your review). After my initial surprise and disappointment that I cannot proceed with building plans due to yet another change of heart of my neighbor at 407 Dahlia, 1 have developed an alternative garage access plan which results in absolutely NO CHANGE to any structural, height, setback, or square footage requirement or aspect of approved Variance number 2001 -004. 1 am committed to designing the garage structure such that all of the conditions, including item numbers 13 and 15 of variance number 2001 -004 can be economically and easily implemented at a future date should my neighbor have, yet again, another change of heart, even if after the project is completed. After reviewing the attached plans. Please let me know if there is any additional information you would like me to provide. Again, thank you for your assistance on this matter. Sincerely, e Y J. Brown M III m5 K yra3 3 um a sneer TURF BLOCK AT DRIVE AREA 36" BOX SCREEN TREE N FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (v 405 DAHLIA ■ I" =10' S{.0' LLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL! LLLLLL LLLL LLL� LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLL, I / LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLL LL LLLLL� r L LL L LLLLLLLLLLLLLI LLLLLLLLLLLLL / LLLLL -LL LLLLL LLLIL' LLL LLLLLLLI ELLLLLLLLLLLLLI LLLLLLLLLLLLLI I / O LLLLLLLLLLLLL II LLLLLLLLLLLLL ILLLLLL LLLL. LLLLLLLLLLLL I I SUBJECT PROPERTY I ml I I 3.6 I I I r' J I I I j I I I I I j I I I I L---------- - - - - -E . _._._._._._._._._._._._._._. —.J W.W III m5 K yra3 3 um a sneer TURF BLOCK AT DRIVE AREA 36" BOX SCREEN TREE N FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (v 405 DAHLIA ■ I" =10' i 1111111libr: i is Grasscrete Structurally Sound Porous Pavement 1111111libr: Urassclele Jpeclllcauuns: bUn1al11Le l.4L)lp4L)rauW1; JlanlpCU auu 1n1pr1nLCU t- uncrele, Jour... rage 1 Ul J GRASSCRETE® GUIDELINE SPECIFICATION The GRASSCRETE contractor is licensed and trained by BOMANITEO CORPORATION, P.O. Box 599, Madera, CA 93639 -0599. The work is usually called out in a section of the specifications separate from concrete and landscaping (Section 2 under Erosion Control 02370 and Porous Pavement 02795). SECTION :GRASSCRETE 1. Scope. All work in this section shall be designated as GRASSCRETE in the plans. The work shall include all labor, materials, equipment and transportation required to install GRASSCRETE. 2. Contractor. The Contractor forthis work shall be licensed by Bomanite Corporation, P.O. Box 599, Madera, CA 93639 -0599, (559) 673 -2411. 3. Subgrade. The subgrade for GRASSCRETE shall be prepared for expected loading and drainage requirements. Subgrade for vehicle traffic shall be in accordance with local concrete street specifications. (NOTE: Because of the wide variety of soil types, weather and anticipated loading, it is not possible to recommend one specific subgrade design. The specifier should keep in mind that GRASSCRETE is porous, and much of the water which falls on the surface will pass through to the subgrade. For most applications except for very heavy loads, native soil having a minimum 'R* Value of 30 and a compaction of 95% will provide a suitable subgrade. In areas having poor soil and/or very heavy anticipated loads, 4' or more of soil should be excavated and replaced with compacted base rock.) 4. Concrete Mix. The concrete shall have a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi in 28 days (except in severe freeze -thaw areas or for vehicles weighing 10 tons or more, in which case it should be 4,000 psi). Portland Cement shall conform to ASTM C 150, Type I, II, or V. Aggregates shall conform to ASTM C 33 and be 318" minus. Mixing water shall be fresh, clean and potable. In freeze -thaw areas, air entrainment of 6.5% to 8.5% shall be provided. Water reducing admixtures and/or super - plasticizers are permitted and shall conform to ASTM C 494. S. Slab Design.The GRASSCRETE slab shall have a minimum thickness of 5 1/2'. GRASSCRETE should be recessed 1' -1 1/2" below adjoining surfaces to allow for grass and topsoil. All perimteters of GRASSCRETE should be restrained by an existing hard surface or a monolithic concrete border. Red painted borders should be used on all edges of emergency access paving. Where used for emergency vehicle access roads or any driving surface, all edges shall be a monolithic concrete border having a minimum width of 12'. 6. Reinforcement.The GRASSCRETE shall be continuously reinforced with welded wire fabric chaired between 2 and 3 inches above the subgrade. (Refer to the following section for guidelines on the selection of reinforcement.) Intended Use — Welded Wire Mesh. a. Erosion control, parking lots, driveways, access roads for vehicles weighing 10 tons or less. 6" x 6' -10 ga. x 10 ga. (6 x 6 -W1.4 x W1.4) b. Regular use by vehicles weighing more than 10 tons, and access roads for fire apparatus with outriggers — 6' x 6' -6 ga. x 6 ga. (6 x 6 -W2.9 x W2.9) c. For alternate reinforcement, #3 rebar placed at 18' on center may be used in lieu of welded steel fabric. This may increase cost due to additional labor. 7. Construction Process. a. Subgrade shall be leveled to a uniform plane 5 -1/2 inches below the final grade of the � GRASSCRETE slab and 6 1/2' - 7' below adjoining surfaces. X g 32 http: / /www.bomanite.com/grasspec.htm 03/12/2002 Grasscrete Specifications: Bomanite Corporation: Stamped and imprinted Concrete, Bom... Page 2 of 3 b. Welded wire fabric shall be chaired. c. GRASSCRETE formers shall be placed on the subgrade. d. Concrete shall be placed and leveled to the top of the GRASSCRETE formers. The concrete surface shall have a heavy, rough broom finish. e. GRASSCRETE formers shall be withdrawn after the concrete has hardened sufficiently. f. Slab shall be cured with suitable curing membrane. (Do not use chemicals harmful to growth of grass.) 8. Soil and Seed. Holes are to be filled and 1' of topsoil is to cover the GRASSCRETE surface for seeding or sod suitable for your local conditions. (NOTE: Typically done by landscape contractor rather than GRASSCRETE Contractor.) 9. Trafflc.No traffic of any kind shall be permitted on the GRASSCRETE slab until fourteen days after placing of concrete and only after soil is placed in holes. Thereafter, vehicles shall be permitted providing they do not exceed the weight capacity for the slab. ADDITIONAL DATA: 1. Grass Coverage.Surface area is 47% concrete if 53% hole. Grass usually covers much of the concrete in areas not subject to regular vehicle traffic. 2. Concrete Coverage. The volume of concrete used in GRASSCRETE is equal to a normal 4" concrete slab. 3. Maintenance. GRASSCRETE requires watering and mowing as would be normal for any lawn. Irrigation must be provided in dry climates to keep the grass healthy. Mowing needs are less in areas of frequent traffic. The grass roots are protected by concrete and are not damaged by vehicle use. 4. Alternate to planting grass. Holes may be filled with crushed stone, seashells, etc., to provide drainage. S. Drainage. GRASSCRETE drains at about the same rate as would an ordinary lawn in the same location. The presence of the concrete has little effect on the drainage; the soil and the slope are the controlling factors. A test report by an Independent laboratory on infiltration rates is available upon request. 6. Load Test Report. A test report by an independent laboratory on a fire truck load test is available upon request. A 33 ton Grumman fire apparatus with outriggers was tested with a horizontal extension of 100 feet of its man -lift with 800 pounds of weight in the man -lift. (Note that GRASSCRETE is a continuously reinforced monolithic slab, and therefore has flexural strength, unlike unit pavers.) 7. Fire -Lane Access. It is recommended that a 12° border can be used at perimeters of GRASSCRETE monolithic to GRASSCRETE driving surface. 8. Concrete Volume. GRASSCRETE is 60% concrete by volume and 40% void area, not including widened edges and solid borders (see item 2 above). 9. Slope Paving. GRASSCRETE can be readily installed on slopes as steep as 3:1. Steeper slopes are more difficult and costly and 2:1 is the steepest that could be possible. 33 http : / /www.bomanite.com /grasspec.htm 03/1212002 uia�acic�c .>ywuicauvua. a vmwum �viyviauvu..>twuycu wiu Liiyiiiitcu c.viictcm' i>vui.., ragc .> vi v 10. Curved Areas. GRASSCRETE formers are square and are used most effectively in rectangular areas free of obstruction. GRASSCRETE may be used in curved areas and areas having obstructions. Areas where complete former will not fit are filled with 3" pipe holes. NOTE: GRASSCRETE is not designed to be a finished surface. IMPORTANT NOTE: This specification supersedes all GRASSCRETE specifications published prior to November 1, 1999. Ca GRASSCRETE is a registered trademark with the U.S. Patent Office. The trademark is owned by Grass Concrete International, Ltd. BOMANITE CORPORATION is licensed in the United States by Grass Concrete International, Ltd. to use its trademark. E -Mail us at bomanite @bomanite.com Copyright 1996 by Bomanite Corporation 3`i lyi http : / /www.bomanite.com/grasspec.htm 03/12/2002 Exhibit No. 5 Revised Plans 3s e "+}X %fkRb:- pXBkl{ DONM -- ;' � GI/WB..ri4 IMBi C m va.m.va.�m %1 /GARB - 1 Lu �� Tessin A 0. 9 NIPPON "Tom Gil- ,. ao h "Tom Gil- ,. ao i i t7l p /` D A'F a I Y i F— re�nmW: NU'SiW vC .I a � 8 .