HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - 1601 Balboa Avenue - Variance 2002-007CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 15
December 17, 2002
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3219 gramirez@city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Variance No. 2002 -007
and Modification Permit No. 2002 -103 (PA2002 -194)
APPELLANT NAME: Patricia Eckert, applicant and property owner
ISSUE:
Should the Planning Commission's approval of a maximum floor area of 1,625 square
feet for a proposed new residence located at 1601 Balboa Avenue be upheld or should
the City Council approve a greater maximum floor area as requested by the applicant?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and either uphold or
modify the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Eckert project.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On November 7, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the application permitting a
maximum of 1,625 square feet, modified setbacks and a slightly modified design that
required the second floor habitable area be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the
southerly (rear) property line. The floor area approved was less than the 1,717 square
feet requested by the applicant. The adopted Planning Commission Resolution is
attached as Attachment A. The applicant requested approval of a variance to exceed
the maximum permitted square footage of 1,025 square feet for the subject property
and a modification permit to encroach into the required front, rear and side yards and to
permit a garage with a substandard depth of 18 feet. The appeal, staff report, project
plans and minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 2002 are
attached as Attachments B, C, D and E respectively.
Eckert Variance Appeal
December 17,2002
Page 2
The appellant takes issue with the Planning Commissions decision to limit the maximum
permitted square footage to 1,625. The staff report included two calculations which are
typically used to provide guidance to the Planning Commission when reviewing variance
applications for properties that have low buildable areas due to unusual setbacks.
These calculations are based on the floor area to lot area for typical lots in the
neighborhood and the "reasonable setback" method where reasonable setbacks are
used to identify a possible floor area. The Planning Commission approval was based on
the 'reasonable setback" figure of 1,625 square feet. The applicant is requesting that
the City Council approve the variance request using the floor area to land area ratio of
1.137 for typical lots in the neighborhood. The resultant square footage based on this
request is 1,705.5 square feet. The applicant is agreeable to the design and setback
changes approved by the Planning Commission. A full discussion of the calculation of
the floor areas used in the analysis of the project is contained in the Planning
Commission staff report attached.
Environmental Review:
The proposed 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 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone).
Public Notice:
A public notice was prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code. It was published
in the Daily Pilot, posted at the site and mailed to surrounding property owners.
Alternatives:
The Council has the following options:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission by approving the project
subject to the findings and conditions contained within Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1580.
2. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by altering the maximum
square footage figure.
Prepared by:
r
Gregg B. irez, A sociate PLAnner
Attachments:
Eckert Variance Appeal
December 17,2002
Page 3
Submitted by:
Patricia L. Temple, an ing Director
A. Planning Commission resolution No. 1580 approving the project.
B. Appeal
C. Planning Commission Staff report dated November 7, 2002
D. Project Plans
E. Excerpt of minutes from the November 7, 2002 Planning Commission
meeting.
F. Letter in support of Appellant
RESOLUTION NO. 1580
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2002 -007 AND
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2002-103 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1601 BALBOA AVENUE (PA2002 -194)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was filed by Ian Harrison, agent for the property owner, Patricia
Eckert, with respect to property located at 1601 Balboa Avenue and described as the Westerly 25 -feet of
Lot 13 and Westerly 25 -feet of Lot 14, Block 6, Section 5, Balboa Island Tract, requesting approval of
Variance No. 2002 -007 to exceed the 1,025 square -foot floor area by 692 square feet,- and- Modification
Permit No. 2002 -103 to allow a 16 -foot encroachment into the 20 foot front (Balboa Avenue) setback, a 2
foot 11 -inch encroachment into the 5 foot right side (Abalone Avenue) setback and 6 foot 10 inch
encroachment into the 10 foot rear setback (2nd floor chimney an additional 1- foot), in order to construct a
new single - family dwelling on Little Balboa Island.
Section 2. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2002 in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of
the meetings was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these meetings.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
a) 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.
The lot location and size are not typical of the other lots in the area and the strict application of the
setback standards would reduce the permitted building area to 1,025 square feet (including a
required two car enclosed garage), and would result in a dwelling of limited size, with
approximately 600 square feet of livable area which is considerably smaller than newer
surrounding residences.
b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Without the granting of the variance to increase the floor area the resultant structure would be
inferior in size and inconsistent in design to other dwellings located in the vicinity
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 project as proposed by the applicant will result in a structure that is similar to and consistent
with other dwellings in the area. The resulting gross floor area of 1,625 square feet is comparable
EXHIBIT 1
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 5
with the floor to land area ratio allowed on other properties on Little Balboa Island, and therefore
not the granting of a special privilege.
d) The granting of the requested variance 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 property is designated for two family residential use and the granting of the variance would
not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic,
parking or demand for other services. Granting the request for the establishment of the floor area
of 1,717 square feet will not, therefore, be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and will
result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings with respect to size, bulk and design.
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:
The setbacks, as proposed, would result in the development of the site to be similar to other
properties in the area and will result in a structure that is similar to and compatible with other
residential structures in the area since a 20 -foot front yard setback is not required for other lots in
the neighborhood, the 3 -foot 2 -inch rear yard setback for the first floor garage and the 5 -foot rear
yard setback for the second floor are reasonable due to the rear yard to side yard relationship and,
the 5 -foot second floor setback is adequate to ensure that light and air ventilation to the adjacent
property is maintained. The 3 -foot right side yard setback is consistent with side yard setbacks for
other lots in the neighborhood and, the project is designed to provide articulation and relief to
reduce the mass of the structure. Additionally, the proposed 18 -foot garage depth is acceptable to
avoid further setback encroachments and the proposed 18 -foot parking depth is adequate for the
parking of vehicles.
f) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the
public at large for access through, or use of, the property within the proposed development.
g) That public improvements may be required of the developer pursuant to Section 20.1.040 of the
Municipal Code.
h) The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt under Class 3
(Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone).
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Variance No. 2002 -007 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -103, subject to the Conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A."
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3 of 5
Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called 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 7`h DAY OF NOVEMBER 2002.
AYES: Toerge, Agaianian, McDaniel, Kiser
Gifford, Selich and Tucker
NOES: None
fl
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 4 of 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Variance No. 2002 -007 &
Modification Permit No. 2002 -103
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and
elevations dated November 7, 2002 with the exception of any revisions required by the following
conditions.
2. Variance No. 2002 -007 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -103 shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire
Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent City- adopted version of
the Uniform Building Code.
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
5. 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.
6. Arrangements shall 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.
8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the
Modifications Committee, the Public Works Department and record the approved Lot Line
Adjustment with the County Recorder's Office.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the California
Coastal Commission for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of the
new residence.
10. 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.
11. Fences, walls, pilasters and other accessory structures greater than 24- inches in height shall be
held back a minimum of 5 -feet from along each street right of way as measured from the
northwest comer of the subject property to create a triangular view plane to ensure adequate sight
distance is maintained.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 5 of 5
12. The clear interior garage dimensions of 17 -feet 6- inches in width by 18 -feet in depth shall
remain clear of all obstructions and remain available for the parking of vehicles.
13. The total square footage of the approved structure shall not exceed a maximum of 1,625 square
feet.
14. The second floor living area and chimney shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 feet from the
rear property line.
15. The second floor deck located at the rear of the property shall maintain a minimum rear setback
of 3 feet 2 inches and shall remain open to the sky and not be covered by any type (solid or
lattice) of roof or patio cover structure.
16. The roof over the portion of the structure that encroaches into the rear yard setback shall be
redesigned from the proposed gable style design to a hip roof design and shall not exceed the
maximum height limit for structures in the R -1.5 Zone.
c�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
EI': %_v
Application No. _✓A ZevZ'/ f y (?) *02 hOV 21 P 1 '24
Name of Appellant d !`/ w A / /�e
��C
or person filing: L(� K
Address:
Date of Planning Commission decision: h6yeMfZ4- 7* , 200Z
Regarding application of:
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission)
i i / , r r
V , mg, emm
Reasons for Appeal :
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
-/y44j for
Dat ay&;Z/7`t1V--Z
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: I ����ii�'�(/1 //) 20
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 (Fumish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95,040(B)
Appeal Fee: $312 pursuant to Resolution No. 2002 -50 adopted on 7 -23-02 (effective 7- 24 -02)
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000)
r' (
Attachment to Appeal
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
Appellant Patricia Eckert
Project PA 2002 -194
Variance No 2002 -007
Eckert residence at 1601 Balboa Avenue, Little Balboa Island
APPELLANT'S REQUEST TO CITY COUNCIL:
We request the City Council to grant us a variance consistent with
proposed plans submitted which will allow square footage on this small
reoriented lot to be in parity with similar neighboring lots. Proposed
documents submitted by architect, Ian Harrison, requested 1717 square
feet. Applying the "typical" (typical lot in the block) floor to land area
ratio of 1.137 (as per staff report at page five) results in a square footage
of 1705.5 square feet.
We request an equitable and fair approach of applying the 1.137
"typical" floor to land area ratio for buildable square footage to obtain
parity with contiguous and neighboring properties. We are prepared to
accommodate the 222 Abalone neighbor agreement of a five foot second
floor setback as well as redesign to modify the chimney and roof to
allow them more light.
In this appeal, we are not requesting a special privilege
inconsistent with other dwellings in the area. We are simply requesting
parity with neighbors in total square footage and will redesign the plans
to satisfy the 222 Abalone neighbor concerns as referenced above within
our request for a total of 1705.5 square feet.
We thank the Council members for their time and thoughtful
consideration of this appeal.
Page 1 of 3
BACKGROUND
Ian Harrison, architect, prepared proposed architectural
drawings and submitted them to the Newport Beach planning
department on September 20, 2002 on behalf of Patricia Eckert. The
proposed square footage requested in Variance No. 2002 -007 and
Modification Permit No. 2002 -103 was 1717 square feet for a new home
proposed to be built at 1601 Balboa Avenue. Lots 1601, 1603 and 1605
Balboa Avenue are reoriented lots in need of variances in order to
proceed with new building.
The request for variances was heard by the City Planning
Commission on November 7, 2002. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from neighbors at 222 Abalone requesting a 5 -foot setback on
the second floor. Appellants expressed willingness to comply with the
Abalone neighbor's second floor setback request and also modify the
chimney and roof slope to allow more light for them.
Mr. Harrison presented testimony that by using a 1.137 floor
area to land ratio for similar "typical" (as per planning commission
staff report) homes along Abalone Ave., the resultant square footage
would 1705.5 square feet.
feet.
The Planning Commission reduced the proposed to 1625 square
STAFF REPORT (PA 2002 -194)
Staff's report provided two methods in support of the approval of
our variance request proposal of 1717 square feet.
Staff' analyzed the variances for floor area previously granted to
two adjoining properties to the east. The floor area to land area ratio of
next -door neighbor, Donna Hammond, is 1.126 resulting in a floor area
permitted by variance Number 1059 to her of 2028 square feet. Her lot
is 30 feet across and appellant's lot is 25 feet across. A typical lot in the
area, as per staff report, has a floor area to land of 1.137 which results
in 1705.5 square feet of buildable for our proposal.
Page 2 of 3
However, we request that City Council members take note that
the staff report analysis for 1603 Balboa DOES NOT include the
additional 200 square feet granted on Little Balboa Island 3 to 4 years
ago. If Mrs. Hammond added the allowed 200 square feet, the floor
area to land area ratio for her property would be 1.238. Were the 1.238
ratio used for our proposal, the maximum floor area would be 1857 for
the proposed new dwelling. We are not requesting the 1857 square feet
but merely point out that typical existing numbers do not reflect the
additional allowable 200 square feet.
Parity with neighbors, the Bonkowskis, across the street at 1600
Balboa Avenue, would result in a ratio of 1.12 . If they chose to add the
allowed 200 square feet that ratio would become 1.236. Were that ratio
used to provide parity for the appellant's proposal, the allowable would
be 1854 square feet, which is more than appellant's request to the City
Council.
We respectfully request that the City Council members take into
consideration the recently allowed 200 square feet when calculating an
equitable parity with similar neighboring properties and note that this
is well above the 1705.5 we are requesting.
NEIGHBOR'S REQUEST SATISFIED
During the public hearing, the owners of 222 Abalone, Mr. and
Mrs. Madison, raised concerns about the rear setback on the second
floor. Mr. Madison testified that they would agree to a five -foot setback
on the second floor at the "rear." To further compromise, we expressed
willingness to bring the chimney in one foot and slope the roof
differently to provide more light for the Madisons.
There appeared, at one point during the hearing, to be support of
a majority of the planning commissioners to satisfy the neighbors and
allow architect Harrison to revise the design appropriately after the 222
Abalone neighbors requested second floor setback was worked into the
plans. We considered this a reasonable, fair compromise and a
satisfying result.
Page 3 of 3
�aFWPpe CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
e PLANNING DEPARTMENT
_ = 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
S�/FOF�`T NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92656
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item:
Staff Person:
Appeal Period
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Eckert Residence (PA2002 -194)
1601 Balboa Avenue
November 7, 2002
5
G. Ramirez
(949)644 -3219
14 days after date of
final action
SUMMARY: Request for a Variance to allow a proposed residence to exceed the
established floor area limit. Included is a request for a Modification Permit
to encroach into the required 20 -foot front yard setback adjacent to Balboa
Avenue; encroach into the required 10 -foot rear yard setback; encroach into
the required 5 -foot right side yard setback adjacent to Abalone Avenue; and
permit an interior garage depth of 18 -feet where the Municipal Code
requires a minimum depth of 19 -feet.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Approve Variance No. 2002 -007 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -103
subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval within the Draft
Resolution.
APPLICANT: Ian Harrison
3535 East Coast Highway, #301
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
OWNER: Patricia Eckert
56 Casa Way
San Francisco, CA 94123
LOCATION: Southeasterly comer of Balboa Avenue and Abalone Avenue on Little
Balboa Island
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Westerly 25 -feet Lot 13 and Westerly 25 -feet Lot 14, Block 6, Section 5,
Balboa Island
GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential
ZONING
DISTRICT: R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family Residential)
� is
Variance VA2002 -007 (PA2002 -194)
1601 Balboa Avenue
Current
Development:
Single-family
residence
308 75 16 � � 4� V
Sing le -famil
residences across Balboa Avenue
ABALONE PL tn 3 ^3
^l
Single-family
residence
1n �o C F 3M1
3A6 _
-
Single-family
residence
To the west:
Single-family
residences across Abalone Avenue
Q04 °
gOZ
302
300 L cm°o n�0 ^i
BAL B OA -A-V-E -
i26 vz
_
3 (o t0 cmD Can � .
26 6
224 w r r 34 b
222 22? 223 15 2yq
LU 220 ,n Subject Propert y . T5"
7 220
N2192
iqg O 218 1n
J 218 219 216
M6 Q 216 217 ,n
217
MM
!14 214 ,n „4 215 � `i14
2 212 213 CO 212 y
x
0 ®0 Feet VICINITY MAP w+ E
s
Variance VA2002 -007 (PA2002 -194)
1601 Balboa Avenue
Current
Development:
Single-family
residence
To the north:
Sing le -famil
residences across Balboa Avenue
To the east:
Single-family
residence
To the south:
Single-family
residence
To the west:
Single-family
residences across Abalone Avenue
Eckert Variance(PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page 2 of I 1
Introduction and Backeround
The applicant has submitted a request for a Variance and Modification Permit associated with
demolition of an existing single - family residence and the construction of a new 1,717 square foot
single - family residence with an attached two -car garage. The variance seeks additional floor area
beyond the 1.5 floor area limit. The applicant also requests approval of a Modification Permit to
encroach into the front, rear and right side setbacks and to permit an interior garage depth of 18-
feet where the Municipal Code requires a minimum depth of 19 -feet.
Site Overview
The subject property is located at the southeasterly corner of Balboa Avenue and Abalone
Avenue on Little Balboa Island and is comprised of the westerly 25 feet of Lots Nos. 13 and 14
of Block 6, Section 5. The property is currently developed with a single - family dwelling and a
detached garage. The property does not have alley access, with access to the existing detached
garage taken from Abalone Avenue.
The subject property is unusual in size (1, 500 square feet in area) and orientation. The property
is oriented in a north -south direction from front to rear. The majority of properties on this block
are 30 -feet wide by 85 -feet deep (2,250 square feet), with the original layout of the lots on this
block oriented in an east -west direction with the front yard facing Abalone Avenue with alley
access at the rear. At some point in the past, two 30' x 85' lots were subdivided into 3 smaller
lots with a north -south orientation with front yards adjacent to Balboa Avenue and no alley
access. The result was the creation of two 30'x60' lots and one 25'x60' lot, the property in
question. An assessor's map (attached) shows the original and current lot arrangements.
Project Overview
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single - family dwelling and detached garage and
construct a new three story single family dwelling with an attached garage. Since the subject
property does not have alley access, garage access will be from Abalone Avenue. Additionally,
the applicant is required by Title 19 of the Municipal Code to apply for, receive approval of, and
record with the County of Orange a lot line adjustment approved by the Modifications
Committee and Development Services Division of the Public Works Department for the purpose
of validating the existing lot configuration.
The proposed residence is comprised of 1,367 square feet of living area (two floors and a small
third story loft), a 207 square foot roof deck and 350 square foot attached garage. The floor area
distribution by floor is as follows:
First Floor: 938.23 sq. ft. (Entry, living room, bathroom, kitchen, 2 -car garage)
Second Floor: 673.27 sq. ft (Master suite with bedroom and bathroom)
Third Floor: 105.17 sq. ft. (Loft) (+ 207 sq. ft. deck)
Total Area 1,717 square feet
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page ± of 11
Analysis
General Plan
The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Two - Family Residential. The
proposed single - family dwelling is consistent with the Two - Family land use designation.
Local Coastal Program
The subject property has a Local Coastal Program land use designation of Two - Family
Residential. Additionally, the subject property is located within the Categorical Exclusion Zone
(CEZ) of the Coastal Zone. Projects on properties located within the CEZ may qualify for
Categorical Exclusion and avoid formal Coastal Commission review if the subject lot is greater
than 1,200 square feet, structural square footage does not exceed 1.5x the buildable area and 2
parking spaces are provided. Given that the proposed project exceeds 1.5x the buildable area, the
project would not qualify for a Categorical Exclusion. Should this Variance and Modification
Permit be granted, the applicant would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit or
Coastal Development Permit Waiver issued by the California Coastal Commission prior to the
issuance of building permits
Zoning Code Development Regulations
The subject property is located within the R -1.5 Zoning District. The proposed single - family
dwelling is a permitted use within the R -1.5 Zoning District. With the exception of the increased
floor area, setback encroachments and non - compliant minimum interior garage depth, all
development regulations of the R -1.5 Zoning District appear to have been met.
Floor Area Variance
The maximum allowable floor area for properties zoned R -1.5 is 1.5 times the buildable area plus
200 square feet for an enclosed garage. Also, please note that for new construction Section
20.66.10 of the Municipal Code requires that two enclosed parking spaces within a garage be
provided. Using this formula and factoring in the 5 -foot reversed frontage setback for the rear 20
feet of the lot, the maximum structural square footage permitted on the subject property is 1,025
square feet which includes the required two car garage.
The following table provides development regulation standards for the subject property, other
lots in the vicinity and the proposed residence:
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page 4 of 11 1
Development
Subject Lot
Typical Lot in
Proposed
Standards
Ave. (Subject)
the Block
Ave
Setbacks:
1,500 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
Front (Balboa):
20 ft.
5 ft.
4 ft.
Side (Abalone):
5 ft.
3 ft.
3 ft. 1 inch
Side (Interior):
3 ft.
3 ft.
3 ft. 1 inch
Rear:
10 ft.
5 ft. (Alley)
3 ft. 2 inches
Gross Lot Area:
25 ft. x 60 ft. =
30 ft. x 85 ft. =
No change
Variance
1,500 sq. ft.
2,550 sq. ft.
Buildable Area:
19 ft. x 30 ft. -
1.126
1.068
Area Ratio
(20 sq. ft.') =
24 ft. x 75 ft. =
550 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
No change
Floor Area Limit:
(Buildable Area x 1.5
825 sq. ft. +
2,700 sq. ft. +
+200 sq. ft. for
200 sq. ft. =
200 sq. ft. =
enclosed garage)
1,025 sq. ft.
2,900 sq. ft.
1717 sq. ft.
Setback Area:
950 sq. ft.
750 sq. ft.
493 sq. ft.
Floor Area to Land
Area Ratio:
.683
1.137
1 1.144
Deduction for reversed frontage setback
Additionally, the two adjoining properties to the east have received variances for floor area. The
table below provides the particulars:
Property
1601 Balboa
1603 Balboa
1605 Balboa
Ave. (Subject)
Ave.
Ave
Gross Lot Area
1,500 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
Buildable Area
550 sq. ft.
720 sq. ft.
720 sq. ft.
Maximum Floor
1,025 sq. ft.
1,280 sq. ft
1,280 sq. ft.
Area
Floor Area
1,717 sq. ft.
2,028 sq. ft. (VA
1,924 sq. ft. (VA
Permitted by
(Proposed)
No. 1059)
No. 1177)
Variance
Floor Area to Land
1.144
1.126
1.068
Area Ratio
(proposed)
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page 5 of 11
It should also be noted that directly across Balboa Avenue from the subject property, there are
several lots created by the original subdivision of similar size and orientation. Said lots have
varying widths of 27, 29 and 31 feet. Required front setbacks called out on the Districting Map
for these lots is 3 feet. Since these lots have alley access, the rear setback is 5 feet with the sides
being the standard 3 feet. Therefore, the smallest (27' x 60') has a buildable area of 1050 square
feet and a maximum structural area of 1,775 square feet (1,050 x 1.5 + 200), which, is of
comparable size of the subject property and proposed residence.
In the past, the Planning Commission has used the "reasonable setback" method to determine a
possible floor area for similar cases. In this particular case, staff has used the following setbacks:
Front: 5 feet on Balboa Avenue
Sides: 3 feet
Rear: 5 feet
The resulting buildable area using the `reasonable setback" method is 950 square feet with a
maximum structural area of 1,625 square feet, approximately 92 square feet less than the proposed
residence.
The Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for Variances. These
mandatory findings are listed and discussed below:
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.
The lot size and orientation are not typical of the other lots in the area, and the strict
application of the setback standards would reduce the permitted building area to 1,025
square feet (including a required two car enclosed garage), and would result in a dwelling of
limited size, approximately 600 square feet which is much smaller than newer surrounding
residences
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Without the granting of the variance to increase the floor area, the resultant structure would
be inferior in size and inconsistent in design to other dwellings located in the vicinity.
3. 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 project, as proposed by the applicant, will result in a structure that is similar to and
consistent v ith other dwellings in the area. The resulting gross floor area of approximately
1,717 square feet is comparable with the floor to land area allowed on other properties on
Little Balboa Island, and therefore arguably not the granting of a special privilege.
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page 6 of 11 i
4. 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 property is designated for two family residential use and the granting of the variance
would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding
additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. Granting the request for the
establishment of the floor area of 1,717 square feet will not, therefore, be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood, and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding
dwellings with respect to size, bulk and design.
Based on the foregoing, staff believes that the facts support the approval of the Variance
request.However, there remains the determination of the appropriate amount of floor area to
approve.
Setback Modifications
In conjunction with the Variance request, the applicant has requested a Modification Permit to
encroach 16 feet into the 20 -foot front (Balboa Avenue) setback, 2 feet 11 inches into the 5 -foot
right side (Abalone Avenue) setback and 6 feet 10 inches into the 10 -foot rear setback. The existing
structures maintain the following setbacks:
Front (Balboa Ave) 1 -foot 4- inches
Right Side (Abalone Ave.) Dwelling 1 -foot 6- inches (Chimney is at property line)
Right Side (Abalone Ave.) Garage 3 -feet 6- inches
Left Side (Interior) 1 -foot 4- inches
Rear (Garage) 1 -foot 6- inches
It should be noted that according to street improvement plans on file with the Public Works
Department, that the public right of way extends 6 -six feet from the face of curb and 2 -feet from the
back of sidewalk.
Front Yard Encroachment
The applicant is requesting a 4 -foot front yard setback adjacent to Balboa Avenue to remain
consistent with other residences on the same block. Based on the City's street improvement plans,
the public right of way extends 6 -feet from the face of curb. The existing residence on the subject
property maintains an approximate front yard setback of 1 foot 4 inches. The adjacent property at
1603 Balboa Avenue has a 2 foot 10 inch setback at the first floor and approximate 10 inch setback
at the second floor balcony. The property two lots to the east at 1605 Balboa Avenue maintains a 4-
foot setback (6 -feet from face of curb) that was approved under Variance No. 1177 in 1991.
The encroachments adjacent to Balboa Avenue consist of a first and second floor tower element, a
recessed French door entry at the first floor, a first floor bathroom and a second floor balcony. The
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page 7 of 11
architectural design and articulation of the encroaching elements and the comer location of the
tower element aid in reducing the mass of the structure adjacent to Balboa Avenue. Staff believes
that the proposed encroachment is reasonable and generally consistent with the front yard setbacks
at 1603 and 1605 Balboa Avenue.
Additionally, the Public Works Department has requested that for sight distance purposes, that all
fences, walls and pilasters greater than 24 inches in height be held back a minimum of 5 feet from
along each street right of way as measured from the northwest comer of the subject property to
create a triangular view plane to facilitate improved sigbt distance. A condition of approval has
been included addressing this request.
Right Side Yard Encroachment
The District Maps have established a 5 -foot setback on Abalone Avenue. The applicant proposes a
3 -foot 1 -inch setback for an 8 -foot 10 -inch wide tower feature, a 5 -foot 2 -inch wide elevator shaft, a
5 -foot 6 -inch wide chimney, a 4 -foot 10 -inch wide 1" floor entry porch, an 18 -foot wide first floor
garage and a 8 -foot 8 -inch wide latticed covered tad floor balcony over the garage. The proposed
bay window feature complies with the development regulations for bay window encroachments
specified by Section 20.60.030 of the Municipal Code.
The proposed garage encroachment is a reasonable request given that it will replace the existing
garage in approximately the same location. Additionally, given the 25 -foot width and comer
location of the subject property, the proposed 1 -foot 11 -inch garage encroachment is a reasonable
design solution to provide maximum parking space depth and maximum distance from the comer
of Abalone Avenue and Balboa Avenue.
The additional first floor encroachments are designed to provide relief and articulation to the
structure by not creating a solid wall. The second floor encroachments are limited to the tower
feature, elevator shaft and open balcony with the bulk of the second floor maintaining the required
5 -foot setback. Staff believes the encroachments along Abalone Avenue are acceptable given the
articulation of the structure that is created due to the encroaching features. However, the
Commission must determine the importance, in this particular case, of new structures conforming
to the 5 -foot setback called out on the Districting Map.
Rear Yard Encroachment
The applicant proposes a 6 foot 10 inch encroachment into the required 10 -foot rear yard setback
where the subject property abuts the adjacent property to the south, leaving 3 feet 2 inches to the
property line. In the past, the "side yard relationship" method has been used for properties that have
been reoriented resulting in a rear yard to side yard layout rather than the typical side yard to side
yard layout. In this particular case, the proposed 3 foot 2 inch setback is intended to match the side
yard setback relationship for typical properties on the same block. If the subject property were not
reoriented to front Balboa Avenue, the rear yard would actually be a side yard with a required a-
foot side yard setback therefore, having the same affect on light and air.
The encroachment consists of the garage on the first floor and a balcony and bathroom at the
second floor. Staff is of the opinion that the first floor garage encroachment is a reasonable request,
Eckert Variance(PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page 8 of 11
as the proposed garage will be replacing an existing single story garage at approximately the same
location. Additionally, staff is of the opinion that having the garage and associated drive located as
far away as possible from the intersection of Balboa Avenue and Abalone Avenue is the ideal
location to maximize sight distances for safer vehicular maneuvering.
The second story encroachment consists of an open balcony with an attached fireplace /chimney,
and enclosed habitable living area in the form of a bathroom. The chimney itself will encroach an
additional 1 -foot into the required setback, therefore maintaining a setback of 2 -feet 2- inches.
Keeping in mind the "side yard relationship ", the Zoning Code does permit chimneys, not
exceeding 9 -feet in width, to encroach 1 -foot into a 3 -foot side yard setback. Please note that the
chimney encroachment is not depicted on the site plan.
Although the side yard relationship has been used for similar requests, in this particular case the
rear setbacks of the other properties located on the same block fronting Balboa Avenue should
also be considered. As previously noted in the discussion of the proposed front yard
encroachment, there have been previous discretionary actions taken for the subject property and
1603 and 1605 Balboa Avenue. The following table provides a synopsis for each property in
regards to the rear setback:
Property
Required Rear
Existing Rear
Discretionary
Setback
Setback
Actions
Subject
10 -feet
1 -foot 6- inches
Use Permit No. 783,
Property
(Garage)
approved alterations
1601 Balboa
to the existing non -
Avenue
conforming
Structures.(] 961
1603 Balboa
10 -feet
7 -feet
Modification Permit
Avenue
No. 72 (1969) and
Variance No. 1059
(1976) 7 -foot rear
setback approved.
1605 Balboa
10 -feet
10 -feet
Variance No. 1177
Avenue
10 -foot rear setback
required. 1991
As noted above, staff is of the opinion that the first floor garage encroachment into the required 10-
foot rear yard setback is reasonable and acceptable, the request for the same encroachment at the
second floor would be out of character and inconsistent with the two adjoining properties to the
east. Staff believes that the Commission should consider a 7 -foot setback for the second floor or
possibly require that the second floor, or a portion of it, be in the form of an open deck to reduce
massing in the rear yard and keep the structure more consistent with the other two on the block
facing Balboa Avenue. However, the side relationship has been used in the past to justify a 3 -foot
setback and although in this particular case a 3 -foot 2 -inch setback may not be consistent with the
two adjacent properties it would not be detrimental to the abutting property located at 222 Abalone
Avenue, in staffs opinion.
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194 )
November 7, 2002
Page 9 of 11
Required Paring
Section 20.66.040 of the Zoning Code requires that enclosed parking spaces must provide a
minimum interior width of 17 -feet 6- inches wide by 19 -feet deep. The applicant has proposed a
garage with minimum interior dimensions of 17 feet 6 inches wide by 18 feet deep. Given the 25-
foot width of the subject property and the lack of alley access, the 18 -foot interior depth is the
maximum possible without necessitating further encroachments into the side setbacks. Staff is also
of the opinion that while parking of large vehicles may be tight, the 18 -foot clear depth proposed is
adequate in this particular case and is acceptable to avoid additional setback encroachments. The
Public Works Department has also reviewed the plans and believes that although the proposed
garage depth does not meet Code requirements, the 18 -foot depth is acceptable if the Commission
is opposed to further increasing setback encroachments by 1 foot to obtain the 19 -foot interior
garage depth.
In order to grant relief to an applicant through a Modification Permit, The Zoning Code requires the
governing body to make the following finding:
That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not,
under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the safety, peace, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the
city, and further that the modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code.
The setbacks as proposed would result in the development of the site to be similar to other
properties in the area and will result in a structure that is similar to and compatible with other
residential structures in the area since a 20 -foot front yard setback is not required for other lots in
the neighborhood, the 3 -foot 2 -inch rear yard setback is reasonable due to the rear yard to side yard
relationship, and the 3 -foot right side yard setback is consistent with side yard setbacks for other
lots in the neighborhood. Also, the project is designed to provide articulation and relief to reduce
the mass of the structure. Additionally, the proposed 18 -foot garage depth is acceptable to avoid
further setback encroachments and the proposed 18 -foot parking depth is adequate for the parking
of vehicles.
Environmental Review
The proposed 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
(Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone).
Summary
It is staff's opinion that the Variance request to exceed floor area is reasonable as the proposed
1,717 square foot single family dwelling has approximately the same floor area to lot area ratio as
newer homes built in the neighborhood and the adjacent homes at 1603 and 1605 Balboa Avenue.
The lot orientation with the application of setbacks unduly restricts the floor area. The request for
the Modification to encroach into the front (Balboa Avenue) and right side (Abalone Avenue)
setbacks also offer a reasonable design solution and the project provides sufficient articulation to
mitigate the affects of the encroachment by limiting the mass and bulk of the structure that fronts
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194)
November 7, 2002
Page 10 of I 1
Balboa and Abalone Avenues. The rear encroachment, however, is far greater than the
encroachments permitted at 1603 and 1605 Balboa Avenue. The location of the first floor garage is
reasonable as it replaces the existing garage; however, the proposed second floor rear setback may
be out of character with the two adjacent properties.
As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received one e-mail in opposition to the proposed
project, which is attached as Exhibit No. 3.
Recommendation
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve Variance No. 2002 -007 and Modification
Permit No. 200 -103 as designed, the suggested findings and conditions of approval have been
included in the attached resolution (Exhibit No. 1). It is staff's opinion that the Variance is
supportable as are the setback encroachments adjacent to Balboa Avenue. Although the project has
been designed to reduce building mass along Abalone Avenue, the encroachment into the required
5 -foot setback along may be contrary to the legislative intent of the Municipal Code. By
encroaching towards Abalone, the project would become inconsistent with other residences along
the same street. Additionally, the encroachment into the rear yard may be out of character with the
existing structures located at 1603 and 1605 Balboa Avenue. Should the Commission find that the
encroachments within the setbacks are not acceptable, staff recommends that the item be continued
to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project to conform to the desires of the
Commission.
If the Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for the Variance request, staff suggests
that the Commission either direct the applicant to reduce the floor area to an acceptable level and
continue the item to see a revised design, if desired, or deny the application. Findings for denial
have been prepared and are attached as Exhibit No. 2.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
Findings for denial
Comment letter
Assessor's Map
Prepared by:
GREGG B. RAMIREZ
Associate Planner
Eckert Variance (PA2002 -194)
November 7. 2002
Page 1 1 of 11
Findings for Denial
Variance No. 2002 -007 & Modification No. 2002 -103
The property is afforded a substantial property right without the approval of a variance to the floor
area limit, and approval of the requested variance is the granting of special privilege. The Zoning
Code presently permits a building that can be 1,025 square feet in area. The property owner is not
deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property as a result on the strict application of the Zoning
Code.
2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or 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 be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare
of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are inconsistent with the legislative intent
of this code for the following reasons:
a. The proximity and size of the proposed structure within the required right side (Abalone
Avenue) setback conflicts with the established setback noted on the District Maps within
the Zoning Code and any encroachment into that setback will not be consistent with the
setbacks maintained by other structures along Abalone Avenue.
b. The reduced rear yard setback would place the proposed structure 3 -feet 2- inches away
from the adjacent property potentially affecting light and air and, the setback would be
inconsistent with other structures on the block.
c. The proposed interior garage depth of 18 -feet is not adequate, in this particular case, for the
parking of vehicles.
--J
EXHIBIT 2 , `I.
Page 1 of 1
Ramirez, Gregg
From: james madison
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:41 PM
To: gramirez @city.newport- beach.ca.us
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Oct. 28, 2002
Reference: PUBLIC NOTICE
Patricia Eckert Residence (PA2002 -194
Variance # 2002 -007 Modification Permit # 2002 -103
Located at 1601 Balboa Ave. Balboa Island Ca 92662
Attention: GREGG RAMIREZ
We are strongly opposed to Variance # 2002 -007 Modification Permit 2002 -103 that allows proposed new
residence to encroach into the 10 foot required rear yard setback adjacent to our home at 222 Abalone Ave.
Balboa Island. Such a large encroachment would severely limit the amount of privacy and light entering the
north side of our home.
The variance also allows the new residence to protrude into the 5 foot setback adjacent to Abalone Ave.
extending the new house well past our frontal setback. If the 10 foot rear yard setback is not adhered to, our
home would be overwhelmed with the proposed new residence.
The two homes to the East of 1601 Balboa Ave. are built to the required setbacks. ( they are located at
1603 and 1605 Balboa Ave.)
When we owned 1601 we checked into a remodel and found it to restrictive, as did the subsequent owner. We
remodeled our home at 222 Abalone Ave. and were required to adhere to the limitations at that time.
However due to the small size of the lot. We are not opposed to variance pertaining to the front and side yard
setbacks adjacent to Abalone Ave. as long as the building area does not exceed the height limit and extend
beyond the frontal setbacks of the two adjacent homes located at 1603 and 1605 Balboa Ave.
Thank -you for your consideration in the above variance.
JAMES AND MARY MADISON
222 ABALONE AVE. BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662
10/3V2002
EXHIBIT 3
0
0
0
°
N
W €`a8 ffi
2NW�4
TN2aR
°e seam
W�YaZ22
22 R
as Ma
3��
�d15H
O
N
0
J
a
W
Q 1 3QN3AV
.aY .. .. .O .eF.
4
\®
(D (p a 0 6 0 0 0 Oa
b w b b
� a
O ♦ M a
0 `
V O O O O O O O O O O O;
Of i6 .eF
3/JN3AV
Q�
FF
i
I-
a N
N
V 0
Q L
0 0 H
op �N.OF
L a
aZQ
A
tl
mWC
� o
oza
�/1 J
<eu,
(D (p a 0 6 0 0 0 Oa
b w b b
� a
O ♦ M a
0 `
V O O O O O O O O O O O;
Of i6 .eF
3/JN3AV
FF
i
I-
3/JN3AV
mm-
3N07VSV
W
N
Oz
m
J
m
ad
Z
- O 1 O
I
I
N
Wr
y
o
0
Q
F
4
09
EXHIBIT 4
I
s 7VNVO ONV&9 391 .3
i
FF
i
I-
mm-
3N07VSV
W
N
Oz
m
J
m
ad
Z
- O 1 O
I
I
N
Wr
y
o
0
Q
F
4
09
EXHIBIT 4
I
s 7VNVO ONV&9 391 .3
i
Oz
m
J
m
ad
Z
- O 1 O
I
I
N
Wr
y
o
0
Q
F
4
09
EXHIBIT 4
I
s 7VNVO ONV&9 391 .3
i
N
Wr
y
o
0
Q
F
4
09
EXHIBIT 4
I
s 7VNVO ONV&9 391 .3
i
EXHIBIT 4
I
s 7VNVO ONV&9 391 .3
i
I
�;q
W"
fl
+I
.'�t.
`}}A�''
� }t
i
e�
S�a
I
I
d'
I
_ ............................
pP I1( „If
..... ....
Ell
c
N\dld `JNIQamll
rv?
M r,
il': •: �
i
a
:r
c
j
+I
.'�t.
`}}A�''
� }t
i
e�
S�a
I
I
d'
I
aa9z id
Y�
1't
�Y
s 3y
E:r ^3eL e: eti
z ..^.Y
t7 N
� S vv Ygs
I N
Bg : "e eg� Y €1�xF E
�A �eaa FellEA 3e 4pR8 E
+E �
��p�eyp
4'rR{ ?eal9 pule" 3 A
ME
flig
11 101 11,
aq
Gs
yY
s
il': •: �
i
a
:r
j
i. _•J
�' E•�lu
qqi
W A”
� �'r
h
�
S �
7Ru
w��'.
z ..^.Y
t7 N
� S vv Ygs
I N
Bg : "e eg� Y €1�xF E
�A �eaa FellEA 3e 4pR8 E
+E �
��p�eyp
4'rR{ ?eal9 pule" 3 A
ME
flig
11 101 11,
aq
Gs
yY
s
a
r
.I
0
0
A
'II
Z
A
Il
Q
y �
s j�
lY
�
I'
I��rl1
I4N IN II \IINW
pp
"f
I'.C6LIt RLSIULNI'P
IIII
Na1.1
," h,,
Iij
O
O
I
�NjN IIARR
I
H--
J`
CKI:
E AT RESIDENCE
1.1 A--
nalxx bb
.........
..
.1 '17 ]1 -S]5
... -
I
I
3f1N3AV
6
F O W
zzm
I
6 r W
U m o
I
V
LLz
I
¢zN-�
it
Zo
�
3N! •ON
o 0 B
I
I
(J
Z
I
= F
Y
Y ,ri
Nwa
O Z O
I
Z
> Ll U >
I
m
mc..z W
.a
w it m m
m ¢ m
� Wy
d WQ
¢3
=o
�AmjJ
n� m
n
µ
OQ
LSE
4�
o
w g
U J
¢ a u w a 3
O LL Q y ¢> W W
u=iu=iwo3w¢Zamwm
apU ¢ Q� - ¢wo a a
1- J
J y
C21-LLM-
uuf m U, m a
a 0 U
FUN
O F N
F a
! ".;Xo
azm
�O„ 6 U
NaZ
-J ❑ N
0
?�a
N
3015 1 31383NO3
(301M .01) A399tl
I
�I
pIP
I
ala
oho
,A Ifl
0 I
J`� I
m
.n
�„r N
CL
a
F
N
p O
C �
0
6
V
0
a
aW
O Y
G. U
(J
m
L1 ¢
�• U
> a
a F
N d
1
w
w I
06
U
a Iw
V
�a
3N! •ON
_a
Fm
oz
J ¢
.J
fr V)
o-
FuO
Wm
4- Q
N m.
F�
NZ
W
F
tJ U
zm
F �^
u. fO
OY
U
WO
¢m
_
N?
ZF
ao
6m
¢
V.
O
t-
oo
i=
m c
Z W
� N
z
O
N
a
a
a
x
z
�N
O O
m
O
�1
� � a
Z
C a m
y F o
z
GQ
uV
P W
E 0 „ u
N �N
N
IL, L1 Q N
Ir -1 N
oU Ll
za
�J N
B ^O r �p '3< o � r LL 6
N Nz u i
< r u <
r
o V) 3flN3An 3NO-vav
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2002
'the whole downstairs to provide two side -by -side spaces off the alley.
Con)missioner Tucker noted by doing the tandem spaces, the alley
encroachment is lessened.
Chairperson. Kiser asked if this was to be approved with the modified tandem
parking and lessening of the encroachment into the alley as much as possible
procedurally would we have to bring this back to review plans?
Ms. Temple answered they would not have to come back to the Planning
Commission and suggested language that would show the process where
undrawn changes would�be approved. An additional condition could read, That
the garage be reconfigureb,into tandem garage with access from the alley. The
encroachment into the alley Nsetback shall be minimized to the maximum extent
feasible as approved by the Plarhning Director.
Chairperson Kiser noted his supporf,of the application with the addition of the
condition.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to uphold the decision of the
Modifications Committee with an additional condition regarding tandem parking
and garage access.
Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker
Noes: None
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that in the event the remodeling process
is started and they find that more structural elements will need to be remodeled
than is currently anticipated and they go beyond 50 %, then they will need a use
permit issued by the Planning Director. Above 75% is not allowed -,,by Code, so if
the house is in much worst condition than they currently anticipate, and they
have to start from scratch then they would have to design to the \gode from
scratch as well. '11
Chairperson Kiser moved up the 611) item to be heard next.
SUBJECT: Eckert Residence (PA2002 -194)
1601 Balboa Avenue
Request for a Variance to allow a proposed residence to exceed the established
floor area limit. Included is a request for a Modification Permit to encroach into the
required 20-foot front yard setback adjacent to Balboa Avenue; encroach into the
required 10 -foot rear yard setback; encroach into the required 5 -foot right side yard
setback adjacent to Abalone Avenue; and permit an Interior garage depth of 18-
feet where the Municipal Code requires a minimum depth of 19 -feet.
Mr, Gregg Ramirez Associate Planner presented an overview of the project site with
18
INDEX
Item 5
PA2002 -194
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2002
photographs taken from various vantage points in the surrounding neighborhood.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Ian Harrison, architect representing the applicant, noted the following:
• This is a difficult lot that is 25 feet by 60 feet with a default front setback of 20
feet.
• We are asking for 1,717 square feet for floor area with this variance.
• The garage will stay in the some location as the existing garage and be 18
feet in depth.
• The height of the building is in conformance with other buildings; no
variance is being asked.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Harrison stated:
• They had met with the neighbors who expressed concern about the
closeness of their garage side to our building. (rear yard encroachments)
• 1 was trying to fit in this house and put in a minimal amount of
encroachment on the second floor with just a portion of the building
projecting towards their side yard.
• They were concerned about the light and air and height of the building.
• We agreed that the outside fireplace would be flush with the rest of the
building.
• The gable end on the roof that projects towards their house will be made
into a hip roof instead to cut down on the height of the wall.
• The existing garage fascia is about even with the property line and that will
be pulled back.
• The freestanding fireplace on the balcony meets the requirements of the
Building Code.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the floor area variance is based on staff's
recommendation using the reasonable setback method. Discussion followed with
the amount of footage and where it could go using the reasonable setback
methodology. Using this reasonable setback method leaves 1,625 square feet
instead of 1,717 square feet that is proposed.
Mr. Harrison answered that across the street the front setback is 3 feet and takes
exception to using a 5 -foot front setback in the analysis.
Ms. Temple noted that front yard setbacks on Balboa Island range from 0 to 15 feet.
We look at the most common condition in the area, you can always point to a
section of the block or around the block where it might be greater or lesser, but you
just try to take the most predominate, and that is what we did.
Commissioner McDaniel, any special reason why this needs to be three stories tall?
Mr. Harrison answered that they are trying to get a useable house on a 19 -foot wide
buildable lot and add to the house getting some outdoor space, which is the
19
INDEX
=r
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2002
outdoor deck with access up to it.
Commissioner Toerge asked if the second floor elements proposed within the rear
yard could be moved toward the center of the house to give more rear yard
setback on the second floor?
Mr. Harrison answered yes; he looked at putting the deck on that comer to alleviate
some of that mass on that end of the building. I did not take it all the way across
that side. Cutting out that corner and creating a void would let more light into that
side yard for the neighbor.
Jim Madison, 222 Abalone Avenue homeowner adjacent to the subject property,
noted the following:
• He met with the applicant.
• Only opposition is the second floor encroachment over the garage that is
the encroachment into the rear yard setback.
• It encroaches 7 feet and with the fireplace it may be a little more.
• His preference would be pulling back the second story above the garage
to the full 10 -foot rear yard setback.
• The typical house on the lot with apartments in the back is approximately
1.200 or 1 A00 square feet with two bedrooms and two baths.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Tucker noted!
• Supports the reasonable setback approach as nothing has been said that
this approach should not be used. Therefore, supports the variance for the
suggested amount of 1,625 square feet.
• The question is where do you put the footage? If the setback on the rear is
changed, that means the footage will go someplace else on the lot.
• That would probably change some other setback requirement because it
has to end up somewhere.
• Eliminating 92 square feet will not make much of a design difference in
terms of mitigating the problems with the adjacent neighbor.
Commissioner Selich noted:
• The reasonable setback approach is good, but I don't think we should get
locked into it for all instances.
• Applying the typical lot in the block floor area to land area ratio of 1.137 we
come up with a house of 1707 square feet which is not that much different
than the 1,717 square feet that is proposed.
• Looking at the comparisons to the three adjacent properties, taking the
1.126 they would be allowed 1689 square feet.
• The design of the house and site plan with the encroachments into the side
yards is a good job with a lot of articulation.
• The suggestion of taking the fireplace and making it even with the sidewall
is a good one as is the suggestion to take the gable roof and turn it into a
hip roof.
20
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2002 INDEX
• These two changes make it a reasonable solution for this piece of property.
Commissioner Agajanian noted:
• The allowable buildable area for the lot as is, is 1,025 square feet. This seems
small with an FAR of .683.
• Concerned with using the typical lot in the block technique by trying to
attribute to smaller lots those benefits that accrue to the larger lots. I don't
think they are comparable.
• Would like to see the overall square footage reduced from the 1,717 square
feet down closer to 1,300 or 1,400 square feet. That is what is suitable for a
parcel of this size.
Discussion that we are currently having with the General Plan Update
Committee is the issue of mansionization of the homes. To me, this strikes
me as being exactly that, ballooning out the property encroaching into the
setbacks in order to benefit the property owner.
• 1 would not support the proposal as it is currently.
• I would move the rear yard setback further back, reducing the overall size
of the structure.
If they need to add additional square footage on the third story, I might be
amendable to that, but generally speaking I would not support a Floor Area
Limit (FAR) of more than 1.0 on this parcel.
I like the suggestions of making the fireplace flush and the hip roof.
Commissioner Toerge noted:
The three -foot issue with the garage is reasonable.
• Makes sense to pull back the second floor to either an additional five feet
or seven feet to honor the existing rear yard setback and give more light
and open area. At the same time, that would reduce the square footage
by potentially the amount referred to by Commissioner Tucker.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern that these are his neighbors. This
location is one or two houses beyond his area of conflict of interest. I want to be fair
so I told the applicant to go to the Little Island Association and see if they approve it.
I would not oppose it if they approved of it. He expressed his concerns that most
people even on full lots live in houses that are 1,200 or 1,400 square feet and have
apartments and landscaping. So, 1,700 square feet is plenty of square footage and
I am not going to suggest what they do with that, but I do know that this will be an
example for others. Whatever we decide this evening, recognize this will be an
example for the next one, and the next one, etc. I may have to abstain from voting.
Chairperson Kiser noted that there should be some reduction in square footage and
would have difficulty approving this variance at the 1,717 square feet. The average
is 1,706 square feet and the rear yard setback as designed now, encroaches 7 feet
and only leaves a three -foot rear yard setback. We need to move that to 5 feet at
a minimum at the second floor. Otherwise the compromise discussion about the
fireplace being pulled back flush with the building and the hip roof instead of the
gable roof satisfies the neighbor. It seems like there are quite a few unusual lots
within the City. As I look at this particular lot, even though it is oriented north /south
21
� t.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2002
INDEX
instead of east /west, the some as the two lots next to it are, and with no alley
behind it. I do not consider this an unusual lot at all. It happens to be a corner lot
that is rectangular and happens to be a small lot. I can not go in the direction that
a house can be built as large as the other homes on the area. If it is a small lot, it
gets a small house. Because there have been variances given to the two
immediate neighboring lots with a lot of similarities, it makes sense to increase the
buildable over the .683. 1 support a reduction to 1,625 square feet with a five -foot
rear yard setback and the other suggested changes.
Commissioner Selich stated he could go with reducing the square footage and
moving the second story back. Looking at the 2nd floor plan, if you reoriented the
elements from the elevator and the stairwell down to the tub /shower and water
closet so that there was an open air balcony going down the rear yard of the
property, you could accomplish the objective that the neighbor has requested. The
second story would be in the setback area and still allow a lot of the elements to
remain in play and reduce the square footage somewhat. It would be a shame to
try to shove that garage closer to the street; it takes too much square footage out of
the bottom floor.
Commissioner Agajanian stated he supports the reduction in the square footage
and supports a 10 -foot setback on the second level over the garage.
Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to leave it up to the architect where to
take off the footage, as he is reluctant to mandate what the design should be;
maybe 5 feet from the second floor with 1,625 square feet total.
Commissioner Agajanian noted he would be willing to go with less than a 10 -foot
setback on the rear yard setback on the second floor if we conditioned that no roof
element be on the patio or open area.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to adopt Resolution No. 1580 approving
Variance No. 2002 -007 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -103 subject to the
findings and Conditions of approval within the draft resolution including the
following:
• The second floor building setback a minimum of 5 feet.
• Square footage is limited to 1,625 square feet.
• The second story element shall not have a roof over it.
Commissioner Agajanian asked if the maker of the motion would change the rear
yard setback to 7 feet?
Straw vote was taken on the rear yard setback:
Commissioner Tucker - 5 feet
Commissioner Selich - 5 feet
Commissioner Gifford - 5 feet
Chairperson Kiser - 5 feet
Commissioner McDaniel - 5 feet
Commissioner Toerge - 5 feet
22
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
November 7, 2002
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Ian Harrison noted he would like more than 1,625 square feet.
Mr. Madison noted that 5 feet would be fine along with the balcony without a
roof structure.
Straw vote was taken on the 1,625 square feet:
Commissioner Tucker - yes
Chairperson Kiser - yes
Commissioner McDaniel - yes
Commissioner Selich - no
Commissioner Gifford - no
Commissioner Agajanian - yes
Commissioner Toerge - no
Vote was taken on main motion:
Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker
Noes: None
SUBJECT:
Beacon Bay Car Wash
4200 Birch Street
Review`of' revised building elevation for substantial conformance with the plan
approved by.Planning Commission.
Chairman Kiser nof\ed that this issue had been reviewed by the Planning
Commission on January` 3, 2002. Plan revisions to comply with Fire Codes has
resulted in a new design' for the canopy. It has been brought back by staff to
assure that we are comfortable with what is being done and what was originally
approved.
�1
Ms. Temple added that as a means, when these issues come up, to have a simple
process to bring them back up and include -9.n oral staff report. I provided a brief
paragraph on this.
Because of certain Building and Fire Code requiremerlt�s, the Building Department
could not approve the original proposal for a continuous)Qanopy bridging the two
buildings and over the gasoline service area. A central canopy separate from the
two buildings was required. In association with that it was felf'•ttiat the originally
designed canopy with the bit of architectural variation in the rooMne couldn't be
maintained in the project design so a more conventional canopy des gn is before
us. It was that particular change that warranted a final review by the Planning
Commission. %- ti
23
INDEX
Item 6
PA2001 -200
Approved
rj_�
D. W. Chesesbro
1508 Park Ave.
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Home Phone 949 - 723 -6416
December 02, 2002
Patricia L. Temple
City Of Newport Beach
Planning Director
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NFWPr)pT rr'Ai.H
AM DEC 0 5 2002 PM
71819110111112111213141516
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision For Variance No. 2002 -007
Dear Ms. Temple,
1 would like to express my support of Ms. Eckert's (1601 Balboa Ave.) appeal of the
the Planning Commission's recent decision regarding her allowable building space.
She should be Intitled to the same property rights as her neighbors.
The "Typical Lot In The Block" (as defined by Staff on Pg. 5 of Variance PA200 -194)
is 1.137. If this is applied to Ms. Eckert's property It results in 1705 sq. ft. The
same Staff report refers to her adjacent neighbors at 1603 & 1605 Balboa (both
were built with varainces) but failed to reflect the additional 200 sq. ft. they are
currently allowed under a Planning Commission ruling instituted about three years
ago. With this additional sq. ft. their "Floor Area To Land Area Ratio" would be 1.23
& 1.18 respectively.
At the Planning Comission's meeting she agreed to alter her plans to satisfy
neighbors concers. She has design a house consistent with the island and is not
asking for anything above what the "typical" homeowner is allowed to build without
a varaince.
Her request for a "Floor Area To Land Area Ratio" of 1.137 (1705 sq. ft.) is equilivant
with her "full lot" neighbors and below what is available to neighbors who have built
with vanriances.
Si"cerply,
Del Chesebro
1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 15
December 17, 2002
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3219 gramirez cit .new ort- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Variance No. 2002 -007
and Modification Permit No. 2002 -103 (PA2002 -194)
APPELLANT NAME: Patricia Eckert, applicant and property owner
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/REVISED PLANS:
The attached set of plans were received from the applicant by the Planning Department
on December 11, 2002. These plans depict the 1,705.5 square foot (1.137 floor area to
lot area ratio) design proposed by the applicant in their appeal, as opposed to the 1,625
square foot maximum approved by the Planning Commission. Additionally, these plans
have incorporated the 5 -foot setback for the second floor living space and the change
from a gable to a hip style roof over the rear portion of the residence as required by the
Planning Commission's approval. However, the plans do not reflect the Planning
Commission's requirement that the second floor chimney at the rear of the property also
be setback a minimum of 5 -feet. The original variance request was for a 1,717 square
foot residence.
Prepared by:
Gregg B. Ralmirez, Associate anner
Attachments:
A. Project Plans (Revised)
Submitted by:
�u� 0
Patricia L. Temple, Manning Director
r Eid €ai.:, ..S• Vipa: €: 5 ; 5 7 €c ea'
¢
:,q 0 g' g 21
g ay z gag� �: 1 'ai Si5'
9 1
s'.tb
�a
'l y
3a 0—;4 ' "s g9A 0p 9's 4f k d
R jRfia Rapj i 7 Ra 1f 'C
?2811H 7g W
ia-
4'r
li F�
i
wg�
��U_ m
A
r _
c
I I
-
-
: - -2OI
_�9C rni
ou
i�
�n
s
I
D ?F
D �A
q
f 0
T
2 fi
a n
C
�
�Y
_
0 72
IYri FF
I�li�4� f
ili€
IAN j.N.IlAR Ri50N
w.lxn<c__
7 '2 l
^R
FCRhHI RF SI f1[N('F
^
(
v IeUI PxllI
=YEn6E
IM1p
iP
`I, Zvi
"a
w3 a ^m
:.
w..
Ty6gr
q
f 0
T
2 fi
C
�
�Y
_
�
IYri FF
I�li�4� f
ili€
IAN j.N.IlAR Ri50N
w.lxn<c__
PLOT / GRADING PLAN
FCRhHI RF SI f1[N('F
^
(
v IeUI PxllI
=YEn6E
IM1p
\`l�
4 HalA ie 61eud, ['olifmT n
A
a
T
0
A
r�
z
Z
N
rn
n
O
z
v
T
oQr
A
T
z
Z
I
iT
T
r
O
O
A
rn
Z
a
O
9
Y PP8Y
r Y
.! .k..
I
y
ECKERT RESIDENCE
Idhand, aArnna
h��I R
ail9
�JrI it
I �'��
IAN 11`l HAR WN
® nacxmc.
(
✓
llzldaa'i15 ^'ill'tltls z9i66]
' II
m ....
„
!.i
44
-I
®]AN IN. CN TISON
nacwreil
.a As 19�
L. ECKF.RT RESIDENCE Il,q
.J/ 9alboa Itl15, 71.8575 9E663 II
,j JIS�A1�8A5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECEMBER. 12, 2002
COUNCIL AGE
N0. 15 Iz 7 0�
Reference: PUBLIC NOTICE
Patricia Eckert Residence (PA2002 -194
Variance # 2002 -007 Modification Permit # 2002 -103
Located at 1601 Balboa Ave. Balboa Island Ca 92662
Attention: MEMBERS of the NEWPORT BEACH, CITY COUNCIL
We are strongly opposed to Variance # 2002 -007 Modification Permit 2002 -103 that allows proposed
new residence to encroach into the 10 foot required rear yard setback adjacent to our home at 222
Abalone Ave. Balboa Island. Such a large encroachment would severely limit the amount of light and
air entering the north side of our home. Just because the front door has been changed from its original
location on Balboa Ave to face Abalone Ave. has no baring on the matter. The property still needs a
rear yard setback.
One suggestion would be to modify the variance to allow one open parking space and a single car garage
in the rear yard set back, Similar to the property located at 1605 Balboa Ave.
There are two homes to the East (next door) of 1601 Balboa Ave. the closest has a 7 foot rear yard set
back (built in the 1970's before R 1.5) the other has a 10 foot rear yard setback (which is standard and
was built in the 1990's)
When we owned 1601 we checked into a remodel and found it to restrictive, as did the subsequent
owner. We remodeled our home at 222 Abalone Ave. and were required to adhere to the R 1.5
limitations of that time.
However due to the small size of the lot. We are not opposed to variance pertaining to the front and side
yard setbacks adjacent to Abalone Ave. as long as the building area does not exceed the height limit and
extend beyond the frontal setbacks of the two adjacent homes located at 1603 and 1605 Balboa Ave.
Thank -you for your consideration in the above variance.
JAMES AND MARY MADISON
,i . j
222 ALA AVE
BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 r
Steve and Marilyn Bonkowski
1600 Balboa Avenue
Little Balboa Island, CA 92662
18 November 2002
Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members:
COUNCIL AGENDA
N035 9 -0;�
We are Little Balboa Island residents living across the street on
Balboa Avenue from Ms. Patricia Eckert, who has submitted plans for
her proposed new home. The planning commission appears to have
reduced her proposed square footage from the requested 1717 to 1625,
which would leave her with liveable space of only 1275 square feet.
Our lot is of a similar nature in that it is 60 feet by 30 feet, whereas
her lot is 60 feet by 25 feet. We enjoy 1385 square feet of liveable area
plus a 330 square foot garage. According to regulations enacted several
years ago, we are entitled to an additional 200 square feet, which would
bring us to 1915 square feet should we elect to add the 200 square feet.
We support her in obtaining parity with our floor area to land ratio
as a fundamental fairness issue.
We would like to encourage her to make 1601 Balboa Avenue her
primary residence as opposed to using it as a rental property with
tenants moving in and out all summer long.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
5tev 4andril Bonkowski
yn