HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - PA2003-180 - Tabak Residence - 3431 Ocean BoulevardCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 16
October 14, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: William Cunningham, Contract Planner
(949) 644 -3200
SUBJECT: Tabak Residence, 3431 Ocean Boulevard
Variance No. 2003 -005 and Amendment to Modification Permit No.
2002 -049 (PA2003 -180)
APPLICANT NAME: Tom Stewart/Fleetwood Joiner Associates, applicant for
Lawrence and Lana Tabak, property owners
ISSUE:
Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action to deny a Variance to
allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and
their action to approve an amendment to a Modification Permit to allow portions of the
new residence to encroach 8 feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny Variance No. 2003 -005 and approve Amendment to
Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 (PA2003 -180) based on the findings and conditions of
approval contained within the attached Planning Commission Resolution.
DISCUSSION:
On September 18, 2003 the Planning Commission took action to deny the applicant's
request for a variance to permit a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot
height limit. The Commission also approved an amendment to an approved modification
permit to allow encroachment of a proposed new residence up to eight feet into the 10-
foot front yard setback. The applicant proposes to replace an existing three -story single
family- residence constructed in 1958 with a new four -story structure that will be
constructed into and down the hillside. The total size of the new residence is proposed
to be 7,325 sq. ft., including a 615 sq. ft. garage. A Modification Permit (MD2002 -049)
was approved by the Modifications Committee on January 10, 2003, which allows the
Tabak Residence
October 14, 2003
Page 2
new dwelling to encroach five feet into the front yard setback. Subsequent to the
approval of MD2002 -049, the applicant revised the plans to align the structure with the
existing house located to the west. In doing so, portions of the upper two levels and a
deck extended over the 24 -foot height limit by up to 21 feet. In addition, the applicant
revised the plans increasing the encroachment into the front setback by three feet, for a
total encroachment of eight feet into the 10 -foot front setback.
The Planning Commission's action was to deny the variance request, but to approve the
modification, which will require the applicant to revise the plans to maintain the upper
floor levels to remain within the 24 -foot height limits. In discussing the matter, the
Planning Commissioners generally concurred with the staff analysis as outlined in the
staff report, and the findings contained within the resolution. The primary finding for the
variance that the Commission was unable to make was that "exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances" apply in this case since the applicant had demonstrated
that a dwelling achieving full and reasonable buildable area could be designed for the
site without exceeding the height limit. With respect to the front setback, the
Commission felt that the request was reasonable given the fact of the 60 -foot setback
from the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard, that most of the setback encroachment was
beneath grade and would not be visible, and that the dwelling was located at the end of
the access drive and sufficient back -out area from the garage is maintained. In
addition, the Commission noted that the setback encroachment will not block public or
private views since the portions of the building encroaching into the setback are either
below grade, or are on the north (inland) side of the structure. The Planning
Commission Staff Report, Resolution, and the minutes of the Planning Commission are
included as Attachments to this staff report.
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 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) since the proposed
structure will replace an existing structure.
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website,
Tabak Residence
October 14, 2003
Page 3
Alternatives:
The Council has the following options as alternatives to the recommended action to
uphold the Planning Commission's actions:
1. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by approving the Variance
request and upholding the Planning Commission action to approve the
amendment to the Modification Permit. Under this alternative, the applicant's
plans would be approved as submitted.
2. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by approving the Variance, but
reversing or modifying the approval of the amendment to the Modification Permit.
Under this alternative, the applicant's plans would require revisions to maintain a
5 -foot front yard setback (including a corresponding setback for the lower
subterranean levels), as already authorized under the approval for the existing
Modification Permit. Other variations to this alternative are possible such as
approving the modification related to subsurface encroachment and requiring a
5 -foot for the level above grade.
3. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission to deny both the Variance and
Amendment to Modification Permit. Under this alternative, the applicant would
be required to revised the plans to maintain the structure within the 24 -foot height
limit and maintain the 5 -foot front yard setback as allowed in the original
Modification Permit approval.
The City Council does not have the option to require a 10 -foot setback as the previously
approved Modification Permit, which authorized a 5 -foot setback, has been approved
and the opportunity to review and change that approval has lapsed.
Prepared by:
William Cunningham, Corfact Planner
Attachments:
Submitted by:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1613 (including findings and
conditions of approval)
B. Excerpt of draft Planning Commission minutes from the September
18, 2003 hearing
C. Planning Commission Staff Report, September 18, 2003
Patricia L.
emple,
la
ning Director
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1613 (including findings and
conditions of approval)
B. Excerpt of draft Planning Commission minutes from the September
18, 2003 hearing
C. Planning Commission Staff Report, September 18, 2003
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2003-
005 AND APPROVING AMENDMENT TO MODIFICATION
PERMIT NO. 2002 -049 (PA2003 -180) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was filed by Tom Stewart/Fleetwood Joiner Associates on
behalf of the property owners, Lawrence and Lana Tabak, with respect to property located at
3431 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 8, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a
Variance to construct a 7,325 square foot residence that exceeds the 24 -foot height limit and
encroaches up to 8 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. Both the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designate the site as Single Family Detached
Residential.
Section 2. A public hearing was held on September 18, 2003, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place
and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is not justified
and is hereby denied for the following reasons:
a) Although the property has topological constraints, the applicant has chosen to heavily
excavate the property, which alleviates the topography constraint, rather than
developing the property utilizing the current physical characteristics. Therefore, there
are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property or use
referred to in the application that would preclude development of the property with a
single family residence designed in compliance with the height limit. The previously
approved plans for Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 show that a residence at or near
the maximum allowable floor area allowed can be designed within the 24 -foot height
limit.
b) The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right in that private view enhancement is not a General Plan
goal nor are private views protected by the Municipal code. The applicant's views are
maintained without the encroachment into the height limit, and full building area can be
achieved without the encroachment into the height limit. Therefore, approval of the
Variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right.
c) The granting of the application is not consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code
and will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed on
other properties in the vicinity within the same zoning district in that the encroachment
into the height limit for the purpose of enhancing a private view is not a goal of the
DRAFT
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paoe 2 of 5
General Plan or a guarantee of the Zoning Code. Additionally, approval of the
Variance to the height limit does not achieve the goal of the Zoning Code in regards to
the reduction of nonconformities and consistent application of regulations.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the requested amendment to
Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 for encroachments within the front yard setback 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:
a) The proposed encroachments will be approximately 60 feet from the existing
sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the
sidewalk especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence does not
exceed the adjacent top of curb height, and is actually below the top of curb. The
majority of the proposed encroachment is below grade and will not be visible.
b) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and development
regulations by way of permitting modification and variance applications. This
procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area
and on this lot.
c) The proposed front yard encroachment is a reasonable design solution given the
topography and location of the site in that the encroachments on the first, second,
and third levels are below the driveway grade levels of the subject property and
cannot be viewed from the street level, and, further, that the proposed
encroachments are on the street side of the property.
d) The proposed modification will not be detrimental to persons, property or
improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the use in
that the portion of the encroachment that is above grade will not block line of sight
or views from the adjacent property.
e) The proposed modification will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining
residential properties in that the encroachments are located on the street side of
the property and the required side yard setbacks are maintained.
f) The proposed front yard encroachment will not obstruct views from adjoining
residential properties nor from the public in that the structure is located below the
grade of the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard, and the views from the adjacent
property are oriented to the south and opposite the side of the dwelling for which
the encroachment is proposed. Views from Inspiration Point are also not affected
as the encroachment is on the north side of the residence and the residence itself
is positioned between the encroachment and the view from Inspiration Point.
DRAFT 40
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3 of 5
5) The property is located at the end of the driveway access and no through
circulation is required beyond the property, and sufficient space remains for
vehicular access and maneuvering.
6) The proposed front setback modification will not require changes to the
improvements and natural bluff area located within the public right -of -way abutting
the property.
c) The 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).
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission denies
Variance No. 2003 -005 and approves Amendment to Modification Permit No. 2002 -049, subject
to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ".
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 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2003.
L0
Earl McDaniel, Chairman
Michael Toerge, Secretary
AYES:
ABSENT:
Z
DRAFT q
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 4 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDMENT TOMODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2002 -049
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan, floor plans and
elevations dated July 10, 2003 with the exception of revisions required to eliminate any
encroachments into the 24 -foot height limit and any revisions required by the following
conditions.
2. Amendment to Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 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 project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code
regulations, including the requirement for installation of a sprinkler and fire suppression
system.
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
5. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire
and Building Code.
6. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or 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, if necessary.
7. 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.
8. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specified by section 20.65.070 of the
Zoning Code.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a drainage plan shall be prepared
and approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments.
10. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Prior to the issuance of grading or building permit for new
construction, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by the
applicant and submitted for review by the Building, Planning and Public Works
DRAFT K
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 5 of 5
Departments. The WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of a grading or building permit for new construction.
11. As part of the submittal requirements for grading and building permits, an extensive
geotechnical investigation and geotechnical report shall be prepared. Included in the
recommendations shall be a shoring plan designed to protect the adjacent properties
and right of way from damage resulting from the temporary removal of lateral support.
12. During excavation and construction, vehicular access to adjacent properties shall be
maintained at all times.
DRAFT a
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
lb
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
ECT: Tabak Variance (PA2003 -180)
3431 Ocean Boulevard
Page 4 of 12
ITEM NO. 5
PA2003 -180
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure and construct a Variance was
new four -story residence. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow denied and
the 24 -foot height limit to be exceeded. In addition, the applicant requests Modification
an amendment to a previously approved Modification Permit to encroach Amendment
into the 10 -foot front yard setback by 8 feet. I was approved
Planner, James Campbell gave an overview of the staff
. The existing property will be torn down and a new resider
constructed that will meet all applicable guidelines and standards
the Municipal Code except for the height of the structure and the frc
yard setback.
. The front yard setback has been reduced to 5 feet with the previous)
approved Modification; however, the applicant is requesting a
additional 3 feet of encroachment for a total of 10 feet c
encroachment.
. Staff recommends approval of that Modification Permit request
. The variance would not encroach above the top of the curb height
would encroach above the 24 foot height limit.
. The topography of the property is a steep bluff property, which make
it difficult to construct a residence; however, the applicant has chose
to excavate the entire bluff to construct the proposed new residenc
and thereby eliminate the impediment. The design of the previousl
approved modification complies with the height limit as well a
achieves the allowable maximum buildable area of the property c
7,321 square feet.
. Granting of the variance application is not necessary as the previc
approved plans allow for the maximum buildable area and full
and enjoyment of the property.
. The purpose of the height limit is to preserve the character and scale
of the community. The modification to the structure the applicant k
proposing, the actual height and mass is not overly large; however
the stated purpose for doing this is to achieve a private view.
Approval of this variance application would therefore, be a granting o
special privilege.
. Photographic exhibits were presented noting the location of
residence; existing conditions of the bluff area; comparisons
file: //F: \USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
neighboring properties; property access; front yard setback; vi
from the ocean side; and plans depicting portions proposed to
above the height limits.
nmissioner Selich clarified that in reviewing the variance
omission is looking at the total project. Under finding 3 in the
)rt, 'the purpose of the height limit is to preserve the scale and chart
he community.' If we found some other aspects of the project
sting that finding, does that give us sufficient grounds to evaluate
)erty, or are we solely evaluating that portion of the project that exce
height limit?
s. Clauson answered that to the extent the rest of the project drives
;ed to exceed the height limit, then you would look at the entire project.
ontinuing, Commissioner Selich referring to page 4 of the staff re
;ference to the General Plan consistency, to what relevance does
iscussion of Policy D have to our discussion this evening?
Clauson answered in one way it has relevance as to one of the
rmination of the findings is the fact that the surrounding location is
acted by topography and the general plan provisions in regards to
Aal bluff, so that is a consideration that can be made in the findings that
are considering.
Ms. Temple added that in the resolution there is no finding related to the
General Plan because staff was not a recommending approval of the
variance. You have a proposal that must be evaluated against that policy.
Staff evaluated it in light of prior Planning Commission and prior Coasta
Commission actions that by doing the grading within the footprint of the
existing development, the project met that criteria. However, our view!
related to the coastal draft alteration provisions will continue to evolve. Tc
the extent the request to approve the variance also drives the need to mak(
that alteration, then that would also be a finding you could make.
,ommissioner Selich asked for a comparison between this varian
equest and the approved variance two houses down the street (Ensi
esidence).
Mr. Campbell answered that this project comes down to a 35 foot I
contour. The Ensign variance had roughly a third of the property con
down to the 58 foot contour and 2/3 of that project would come down to
52 foot contour. The current project does go down the bluff a bit fur
approximately 17 feet. Mr. Campbell then made the Ensign plans avails
for the Commission to review.
Commissioner Tucker noted that there are two issues, height limit variance
and how far down the bluff, which is driven by the pool. If the applicant
didn't seek the variance, then the issue of the swimming pool has already
been decided. The only reason the issue of how far down the bluff comes
Page 5 of 12
file: / /F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
,a
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
up is because the applicant is asking for something in addition to whs
exists as a matter of right. How does the down the bluff issue work relate t
the height variance issue, which has to do with a different area of th
property? We can look at the totality of the circumstances if one aspe
affects the other, some interrelationship. I am not seeing how the work i
the pool area relates to the variance request.
Ms. Clauson noted that to the extent that considerations of the coastal bluT
and preserving coastal bluff property is an element that might be used as
support of a reason for the need for the variance to go up, then in the
context of the overall approval of this project you can consider all the design
attributes of this project to the extent that they are driving the height
increase. The applicant is saying that there is something about this
property that drives the need for this variance. The whole project and how
it sits on the property and how it is impacted by the topography driving the
need for a variance is relevant. They could still get it if all the approvals
were granted and they were not asking for this variance. I don't think you
would look at the request for this variance in that vacuum, you would have
to look at the whole project.
ontinuing, Commissioner Tucker noted the manner in which the natural
rade was determined, we have a situation here where we are using the
)otprint of the prior structure as the natural grade. We have this plateau
nd then a 3 1/2 foot wide area where the variance request is primarily
)cated. My concern is why the Butterfields did not need a variance when
ieir house was in identical circumstances, it must have been the pre -
xisting structure on the Butterfield lot encompassed the entire building
nvelope for the next structure.
Staff answered that appears to be the case noting, the difference is the
upper level of the house cantilevers over the existing retaining walls and
foundations. The area of the variance is directly above the sloping bluff as
opposed to being above the existing retaining walls and foundation
structures. It is a different circumstance because this house cantilevers, so
that is why there is a wedge shape area that puts the house above the
height limit if you want to put the new house in the same position as the
existing house.
missioner Tucker asked about the new construction and how far
J go down the slope, and how much of the 17 feet beyond where tt
in residence was at the 52 foot contour structure?
Campbell answered that the basement level is at 40 and 1/2 feet;
a 5 feet is due to the pool taking the project to the 35 foot contour.
mmissioner Eaton stated that to approve a suggested zone change
emission or Council would have to make a finding of consistency
General Plan. Is that true for a variance or a use permit? If a variE
to be approved, is there a necessity to make a finding of conformE
the General Plan?
Page 6 of 12
AFT
13
file: / /F:\ USERS \PLN \Shared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
Ms. Clauson answered that there is not a finding in the Code that requires
consistency with the General Plan. There is some case law that use
permits do not require that consistency finding because the government
code talks about zoning ordinances being consistent with the general plan.
A use permit and a variance are discretionary permits that allow for minor or
different variations from the provisions in the Zoning Code. If the Zoning
Code itself is consistent with the General Plan then variations from that,
unless they vary outside even what is allowed under the Land Use Element,
I think generally wouldn't have to have that same finding. r
mmissioner Selich noted his belief that the project is not consistent with
meral Plan Policy D, is that a valid reason to support the findings for
nial of the variance?
. Clauson answered that in looking at a furtherance of a policy is that
ether the project would further the provisions of the Land Use, this might
a finding that you could consider.
irperson McDaniel noted that a letter from the Butterfields was received
distributed to the Commission.
leetwood Joiner, architect in Newport Beach, spoke representing the
pplicant stating the following:
• This project has been to the Coastal Commission for removal of a
stairway and replaced with something that is built on grade.
• This project is in compliance with the Coastal Commission approval
and has a design approval with the City.
• We are seeking this variance for architectural appurtenance reasons,
which would beautify the home as far as sitting on the bluff.
• The variance will put us in line with the adjacent residence and to the
point that the existing home now sits.
• We are not asking to go out any further than the existing home or
adjacent home sits.
• Referring to a diagram, he further stated that the project is not going
down to the 35 foot level, existing house and allowable envelope for
new construction; referenced adjacent homes; the variance request
represents a 16 foot depth at 3 1/2 to 4 feet extension, an area for
more shadow line for a piece of glass and a corner piece about 6
inches by 6 inches as well as an encroachment in the front yard that
staff has recommended approval.
• We did not put a pitched roof on this design; the proposed project is
1/2 feet below curb height, and are not obstructing the street view
anymore than currently exists.
• If the variance is approved, we will have to go back to the Coastal
Commission.
The design 'zig zags' to adhere to the envelope lines.
,ommissioner Eaton then asked about the difference between the two
sides of the building as to how much of an encroachment there is. The
Page 7 of 12
AFT
file: //F: \USERS \PLMShared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
ii
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
shows different encroachments on the north and south sides.
Mr. Campbell answered that the drawing presented by the architect
represents encroachments of the proposed structure beyond the existing
house (indicated by red dash lines). Referring to the exhibit presented by
the architect, the light blue dash lines shaded area below the red dashed
lines is where the proposed house would exceed the 24 foot height limit.
He then referred to Exhibit A6 of the drawings in the packet that shows the
section near the north and south elevations. The north side has lower
grade and a larger encroachment than the south side of the property. The
proposed structure would encroach vertically approximately 21 feet on the
north side and 12 feet on the south side and approximately 4 feet
horizontally away from the bluffs.
Commissioner Cole verified that the reason the variance is being requested
is purely for architectural design, or are there other reasons that might
impact the enjoyment of the home if the homeowner had to live within the
existing envelope.
Mr. Joiner answered, yes it is for architectural reasons to create more
shadow line to the building. We are maintaining the same vertical footprint.
At Commission inquiry he added that they want to be adjacent to the home
next to them as that infringes upon the applicant's views and there is a
privacy issue as well.
ublic comment was opened.
Marvin Nevis, citizen of the City and representing Helen Anderson and Rod
Jones, other neighbors who were unable to attend, noted that they oppose
the granting of the variance on the westerly side of Ocean Boulevard that
deals with height as it infringes on the views not only theirs but people
walking up and down Ocean Boulevard. Ocean Boulevard rises as you go
up the southerly side of the street so what is below the street line at one
position is not below the street line at another position. The people who
come to our boulevard will see roof tops and not what you used to be able
to see. That street is owned by the City and part of the land that is being
used by these people is owned by the City. The City has leased some of
the land to them, which is fine. I do not see the need for increasing height
limits on a house beyond the limits provided by the Code, which in some
respect, may affect views for people across the street, down the street or
walking down the street. We agree that the variance be denied and urge
that the modification permit be denied. It appears that there is no
justification for allowing that variance to be approved. At Commission
inquiry, he stated that if the height was below the street line at the lowest
level of Ocean Boulevard, he would not object to the variance. But if it is
below the street line at the highest level of Ocean Boulevard, I would
object. That is what is happening here and that is what happened on the
Butterfields project as well. I don't think that the fact that the Butterfields
house was built and approved, should be a basis for you to allow it to
happen again.
Page 8 of 12
AFT
file: //F: \U SERS\PLN\Shared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
kS
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
Nick Reed, citizen of Newport Beach noted that the Code is there for a
reason. If you continue to grant variances to the Code, then eventually you
will have changed the Code. If you are for growth and to attract more
wealth to this area, I don't think it should be done through variances, it
should be done through changes to the Code. I urge that you deny the
variance request on this residence because if you do approve it, then it will
be easier for the next house to get a variance. You will be changing the
character of the bluff.
ina Reed, citizen of Newport Beach urged the Commission to remember
at a lot of homes on that street have been built within the standards of
ode. She noted her concern of environmental issues and asked that
ese be considered. At Commission inquiry, she noted that the building I
ay impair her views.
)mmissioner Tucker asked if the area where the variance is being sought
)uld be visible from Ocean Boulevard including oblique angles. What is
effect on the view corridor, as we have nothing that shows the line of
Iht. It should resolve concerns that this is on the south side of the
ucture and is a question of how much of the structure that is lawfully
ing to be there will block the opportunity to see the area where the heigh
riance is being sought.
Campbell answered that the proposed structure will be higher than the
sting structure by about three feet, but it will still be about three feet
ow the level of curb adjacent to property. The existing house is already
i- conforming to the 24 foot height limit now. Referencing the
)tographs of the the existing residence, he noted the volume that would
allowed and the oblique view that would be lost. The variance may
act residents on the north side of Ocean Boulevard from that vantage
nt whereby they would lose sight of some of the sand. The effect of this
croachment will change with the vantage point. He noted additional
stage points and views along the whole width of the house.
Don Kazarian, citizen of Newport Beach noted that the modification in the
Front of this property is above ground and goes into the front setback and is
a big issue. This one house will be closer to Ocean Boulevard and is much
different than the Ensign project.
n Butterfield, citizen of Newport Beach asked that the Commission
sider the consistency issue as it pertains to the Code because that is
it gives the quality of life there. There are two other homeowners who
at the City who are going to develop their property and await the
;ome of this hearing. She noted that the Code is supposed to be
Public comment was closed.
clarified that on the upper level of the residence, there is a proposed
:e at the east side of the residence that will not block the view as noted
Page 9 of 12
AFT
Jb
file: //F: \USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
in previous descriptions. The actual encroachment on the upper level will
be an open structure. The encroachment does not go across the whole
width of the structure at the upper level.
)mmissioner Tucker noted that there appears to be not much in the way
view impairment but questioned where it is on the structure.
Commissioner Selich noted he is not in support of the variance. He noted
that he does not believe there is any impact on the view from Ocean
Boulevard, even at oblique angles you may be blotting out tiny views of the
sand. He noted his concern about the project is based upon something that
was done two years ago when the Commission sent a request to City
Council suggesting that the City look at what happens to structures that are
being built on the bluffs at Corona del Mar and what can be done legally
under the existing Code and what impact that would have on the bluffs.
The Council decided to defer any consideration on that to the development
of the Local Coastal Plan, which we are working on and are still quite a bit
away from conclusion. There will probably more defined criteria when the
plan is done than what we have now, which is a general statement in the
General Plan. My concern is that this project is going further down the bluff
than I think it should and it appears that if is not in conformance with our
policies in the General Plan. We took the right approach in the Ensign
project where they went down into the bluff, but the bottom level receded
down and the bluff face remained outside of it. It was basically a semi -
subterranean bottom level, whereas this bottom level is completely open on
the ocean side of this project. It makes a big difference and the
appearance and alteration of the bluff is going to be much more significant
than the Ensign project. The problem is that this project did not take this
into consideration in its original design because the City has no policies or
design criteria to regulate bluff alteration. It comes back to us and they are
asking to exceed the height limit on a very small portion of the project,
where, with very minor modifications on this, they could build the project
under the existing Code exactly as it is proposed with the alteration down
the bluff. It presents a dilemma on how to evaluate this. I don't see I could
support a project that I think is encroaching too far into the bluff even
though I know the applicant could go back and make a few minor changes
to it and take a small portion out of the height encroachment area and be in
complete conformance with the City Codes. In looking at the totality of the
project, I can not support it.
Commissioner Cole noted he can not support the application. As a
Commission we have to find certain findings to grant a variance. Even
though we can make a case for several of them, I don't believe a case has
been made where there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstance
applying to the land, building or use.
Commissioner Eaton noted he can not support the variance, he could
support the request for the modification. The findings for the modification
are different and the majority of the modification request is under ground
and will not be visible. I agree that we can not make the findings for the
Page 10 of 12
RAFT
11
file: / /F:\ USERS \PLN \Shared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003
riance. Being this close to Inspiration Point the further extension down
bluff is going to be particularly visible.
Commissioner Kiser stated he could not support the height variance for
previous comments adding that he supports the staff analysis for the
modification. He noted his concern of the homes going further down the
bluffs.
ommissioner Tucker stated he supports the modification, the variance he
troubled about the concept of having a plateau that falls off and then the
ieasurement is done in a different fashion. There ought to be a string line
nd that should limit where the structure should be. I don't believe that the
eight variance has anything to do with the proposed work down the bluff. I
t some point in time there needs to be a defined limit on how far down the
lulls you can go. However, I do not see anything in our Codes that really
ives us that authority. The rest of the project heading down the bluffs is
of the right direction.
:hairperson McDaniel stated he is not in support of the variance. A
ariance is to fix a problem, this is going to be a blank slate to start with and
don't see a need for anything different to take place here. I am
iscouraged when we are building down the bluffs, but we have no authority
deal with that. I suspect we are not going to rezone that area so we are
oing to try to be as consistent as we can. If we did grant this request, it
Could be a special privilege on a special piece of property.
ommissioner Selich noted that his comments were in addition to the
ndings and recommendations in the staff report. Motion was made by
ommissioner Selich to deny the applicant's request for the variance and
pprove the modification permit by adopting the resolution contained in
xhibit 1 of the staff report.
Commissioner Tucker asked the maker of the motion to split the motion in
two. The maker of the motion agreed.
Motion was amended by Commissioner Selich to deny the applicant's
request for the variance for reasons stated in the staff report and discussed.
Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser
No'. Tucker
Motion was continued by Commissioner Selich to approve the modification
permit by adopting the resolution contained in Exhibit 1 of the staff report.
Ayes:1 Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Selich, Kiser and Tucker
Noes:1 McDaniel
Absent: None
'\bstain:l None
Page 11 of 12
AFT
IV
file: //F: \USERS \PLN\Shared \ginger \0918.htm 10/06/2003
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
l`�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 5
September 18, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: William Cunningham, Contract Planner
(949) 644 -3200
SUBJECT: Variance No. 2003 -005 and Amendment to Modification Permit No. 2002-
049 - Tabak Residence (PA2003 -180)
3431 Ocean Boulevard
APPLICANT NAME: Tom Stewart/Fleetwood Joiner Associates
INTRODUCTION:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure and construct a new four -story
residence. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the 24 -foot height limit to be
exceeded. In addition, the applicant requests a Modification Permit to encroach into
the 10 -foot front yard setback by 8 feet.
RECOMMENDATION:
Hold a public hearing and deny the applicant's variance request and approve the
Modification Permit by adopting the resolution contained in Exhibit No. 1.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The property is currently developed with a single family residence constructed in 1958.
The existing dwelling is a three story structure that is constructed partially into and down
the hillside. The property is accessed by a public driveway from Ocean Boulevard. The
driveway is located within the Ocean Boulevard right -of -way, and the total distance from
the sidewalk to the property line is approximately 60 feet. The applicant proposes to
demolish the existing structure and construct a new dwelling. The proposed new
structure will be 6,710 sq. ft. of living area, will have a 615 sq. ft. three -car garage, and
will have four levels that will be excavated into the hillside. The floor plan will consist of
the following:
Ell
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 2
Level 4 (3rd floor) — Garage, entry, office and bath — 1,363 sq. ft. (incl. 615
sq. ft. garage)
Level 3 (2 "d floor) — 3 bedrooms, 2 baths and rumpus room — 1,990 sq. ft.
Level 2 (151 floor) — Master bedroom suite — 1,910 sq. ft.
Level 1 (Basement) — Living areas, kitchen and dining room — 2,062 sq. ft.
The plans also contain a pool and deck off of the lower ( "Basement ") level.
The applicant requested a Modification Permit (MD2002 -049) from the City to permit the
structure to encroach five feet into the 10 -foot front yard setback. That Modification was
approved by the Modifications Committee on May 29, 2002. Subsequently, the
applicant submitted plans to the Coastal Commission, which approved the project on
January 10, 2003. The Coastal Commission's approval included the location of the pool
and deck, and included a requirement that the structure not exceed the 24 -foot height
limit. The applicant has revised his plans to bring the wall of the upper two levels in line
with the adjacent residence to the west. In order to do so, the proposed structure was
extended 3 ft. 8 in. away from Ocean Boulevard, which results in that portion of the
structure encroaching above the height limit. The encroachments include up to 12 feet
at the southeast corner; up to 21 feet at the southwest corner; and a small corner of the
third level deck and glass guardrail. (Note: the existing structure currently is in line
with the adjacent dwelling, and the upper level of the structure encroaches into the
building height limit). In addition, the applicant now proposes to encroach an additional
three feet into the front setback, for a tJiai ` setback encroachment of eight feet into
the ten -foot setback.
Al
VICINITY MAP
160 A&
Fe t NORTH
Analysis
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 3
Code Requirement
Proposed
Setbacks:
0
Front
;FX,
X
Sides
o"
4 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
.P
Building Height
7�
Vanes
P
7,325 sq. ft.
Subject Property: Subject
Parking
2 spaces
3 3 31 Ocean 431 Ocean lVd
V
VICINITY MAP
160 A&
Fe t NORTH
Analysis
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 3
The project, other than height and front setback encroachment, complies with other
applicable site development standards of the Zoning Code (height and setback are
discussed in detail in following sections) as outlined in the following table:
Code Requirement
Proposed
Setbacks:
0
Front
;FX,
X
Sides
o"
4 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
.P
Building Height
7�
Vanes
P
7,325 sq. ft.
7,325 sq. ft.
Parking
2 spaces
3 spaces
V
4;1
oo
The project, other than height and front setback encroachment, complies with other
applicable site development standards of the Zoning Code (height and setback are
discussed in detail in following sections) as outlined in the following table:
General Plan:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for single-family residential
use and the proposed project is consistent with that land use designation.
EN
Code Requirement
Proposed
Setbacks:
Front
10 ft.
2 ft.
Sides
4 ft.
4 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
30.5 ft.
Building Height
24 ft.
Vanes
Building Area
7,325 sq. ft.
7,325 sq. ft.
Parking
2 spaces
3 spaces
General Plan:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for single-family residential
use and the proposed project is consistent with that land use designation.
EN
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 4
Policy "D" of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states:
"The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to
insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of
unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along
bluffs and cliffs."
In addition to the General Plan Policy "D ", the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) contains
a similar policy that "finds that natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and
environmental resource" and requires that "the location and design of a proposed project
shall take into account public view potential."
In order to preserve the natural bluff to the degree possible, the applicant proposed to
excavate into the hillside below the existing residence, with nearly all of the proposed
added living area located within the excavated area. However, a pool, deck and
supportive retaining wall will be located on the lower ( "basement ") level, which extends the
developed area further down the bluff disturbing what appears to be a natural bluff. The
applicant submitted his plans to the Coastal Commission, which approved the project
substantially as currently proposed in terms of modifications to the coastal bluff (i.e., the
pool, deck and retaining walls) and resultant impact on public views. While Coastal
Commission staff recommended that the pool and related improvements be moved back
or eliminated, the Coastal Commission approved the plans, and in essence made the
finding consistent with Policy °D" that public views were being maintained and that the
alteration of the natural bluff was not inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
Staff believes the improvements in the bluff area are minor, and much of the proposed
new structure will be located in the excavated area below the existing residence and will
not be visible from the vantage points of Ocean Boulevard or from Inspiration Point (which
is located above and to the southeast of the property; individuals viewing the site from
Inspiration Point actually view the back of the property and the bluff area below the house).
The project will result in a structure that will be similar in size and bulk to other ocean -front
structures located in the vicinity. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the project is consistent with
the General Plan, including Policy "D."
Building Height:
The applicant proposes to construct the residence with the south - facing (ocean side) walls
in line with the existing residence located to the west. The maximum height allowed is
measured 24 feet over the natural grade. The project complies with the top of curb height
limitation (the highest point of the roof is at the approximate 92 -foot elevation and the
height of curb is at approximately the 94.5 -foot elevation). However, in order to construct
the structure as proposed, portions of the dwelling will exceed the maximum height limit as
measured from natural grade. These encroachments above the height limit are
demonstrated on Sheet A6 of the project plans (Exhibit No. 3), and will consist of (1) a
portion of the third and fourth level walls at the southwest corner of the building to a depth
of approximately 3 ft. 8 in.; (2) a portion of the fourth level wall at the northeast corner of
�5
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 5
the building to a depth of approximately 3 ft. 8 in.; and (3) a small corner of the deck and
glass rail on the third level deck.
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 applicant contends that the proposed structure is consistent with surrounding
residences, and that the proposed building wall is in line with the adjacent structure as well
as the existing structure on the site (the proposed encroachment into the height limit is
similar to the current structure's encroachment). In addition, the applicant states that
another reason for extending the upper level walls to be in line with the adjacent residence
is to preserve and enhance ocean views from those levels. Staff concurs that the structure
will be similar in size and bulk to other houses in the vicinity. However, in staffs opinion,
the finding of "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances" cannot be made in this case.
Even though the property has topographical constraints and the exceptionally large
distance from the Ocean Boulevard to the property line exists, the fact that the applicant is
excavating into the hillside allows him the opportunity to construct a dwelling that
maximizes the net building square footage of the site, without the need to encroach into
the height limit. The plans approved under Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 resulted in a
total building area of 7,321 square feet — 4 square feet less than the proposed project
without encroaching above the height limit.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights of the applicant.
While the applicant's request will result in a structure that will be similar in appearance to
surrounding properties, and the unusual location and topography of the site present design
constraints, in staffs opinion, the height variance request is not "necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of property rights." The applicant has stated that part of the
intent is to improve his views from the upper levels of the structure. However, while
preservation of views is a stated goal, staff notes that the preservation and enhancement
of private views is not a goal of the General Plan and is not guaranteed by the Zoning
Code. Nevertheless, the applicant's views are maintained even with the dwelling designed
within the height limits. If the variance is not granted, the wall of the upper levels will need
to be moved back approximately 3 ft. 8 in., which will still give the applicant ample room to
accommodate the uses proposed on the third and fourth levels. Given the already
approved Modification Permit and the additional requested setback encroachment
requested with this application, the area is further increased within which to allow
adequate design options on the upper levels. As noted above, the applicant has already
demonstrated with the plans approved for the original Modification Permit that the full
allowable building square footage (7,325 square feet) can be achieved without the
a4
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 6
variance. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the variance is not required for the preservation of
property rights and the finding cannot be met.
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 variance requested by the applicant, if granted, would constitute "a grant of special
privilege" is arguable in staffs opinion. The purpose of the height limit is to preserve the
character and scale of the community. As noted above, the proposed new structure will
be in line with the adjacent residence, and will have an appearance and design similar to
other homes located in the vicinity, and from that standpoint is not an unreasonable
request. On the other hand, to grant a variance based on the specific circumstances of
this case for the sole purpose of private view enhancement could be considered as
granting a special privilege. In addition, uniform compliance with the height limit and the
elimination of nonconformities is also a purpose of the Zoning Code. The proposed
project does not achieve this purpose.
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 height of the proposed structure will be approximately 3 feet higher than the roof line
of the existing residence that is proposed to be demolished (the new roof line will be the
same height as the adjacent residence). Staff notes that the wall of the existing house that
is proposed to be demolished is in line with the adjacent residence and that a portion of
the upper level of the currently- existing structure encroaches into the 24 -foot height limit.
Upon completion, the highest portion of the new structure will be slightly more than 3 feet
below the grade level of the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard and will not block public
views from that vantage point beyond the currently- existing situation. Also, the views from
Inspiration Point are not blocked, restricted or significantly altered with the proposed
project due to the fact that Inspiration Point is further to the south and closer to the ocean
than the proposed structure. In addition, the building walls along the south of the
residence are proposed to be in line with the residence located to the west, and, therefore,
will not block views from that structure. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the finding that the
project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare could be made.
In summary, in staffs opinion, while the fourth finding can be made, the findings relative to
"extraordinary circumstances ", "preservation of property rights" and "grant of special
privilege" should not be made.
a6
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 7
Setback Modification:
The applicant proposes to construct the residence to within two feet of the front property
line. A Modification Permit (MD2002 -049) was approved by the Modifications Committee
on May 29, 2002, to allow the structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 -foot front
yard setback. The applicant has revised the plans, and now proposes to encroach an
additional 3 feet into the front setback, which requires an amendment to the originally -
approved Modification Permit. In approving MD2002 -049, staff noted the unusual
topography and location of the site; the fact that the encroachments on the lower levels are
below grade and will not be visible; and the fact that the completed project will not obstruct
sight distance views or views from adjacent properties. As noted above, the property is
unusual in that the access is via a driveway that winds down the hillside from Ocean
Boulevard, and the front property line is approximately 60 feet from the sidewalk along
Ocean Boulevard. The top of the upper level wall that encroaches into the setback will be
over three feet below the grade level of the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard (the lower
level walls are below grade and cannot be viewed). In addition, most of the
encroachments are located below grade and will not be visible. Of the upper level walls
that are visible above grade, approximately 31 feet (56 %) of the total 55 feet of wall
frontage are proposed for the additional encroachment into the front setback. The subject
property is the last house located along the access driveway, so no through circulation is
required to gain access to other properties. Also, up to 25 feet is maintained to allow the
residents maneuvering space for backing out of the garage. In addition, the applicant is
pr000sina to maintain the existina retainira wmll aiorg the driveway and will not modify the
wall or bluff area in the front of the properly that is within the public right -of -way (the trash
enclosure will be relocated to facilitate vehicle maneuvering). Therefore, in staffs opinion,
the original findings can be made for the additional 3 -foot front yard encroachment, and it
is staffs recommendation that the Amendment to the Modification Permit be approved.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, in staffs opinion, the mandatory findings for granting a variance cannot be
made. On the other hand, the request for the modification to allow encroachment into the
front yard setback is reasonable. Therefore, staff has prepared a draft resolution for the
denial of the Variance and the approval of the Modification Permit.
Environmental Review:
The proposed project qualifies for a categorical exemption from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures). The approval of a variance to the height of a structure and the
modification to allow encroachments into required front yard setback are alterations in
development standards and do not result in a change in land use or density and does not
affect any significant environmental resources.
Tabak Residence
September 18, 2003
Page 8
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Alternatives:
The Planning Commission has the option to deny both the Variance and the
Modification Permit requests. The applicant would then be able to implement the
project consistent with the plans previously approved by the City and the Coastal
Commission. The Commission also has the option to approve both the Variance and
Modification Permit, in which case it would be appropriate to offer findings for approval
of the Variance (the findings for the approval of the Modification Permit are already
included within the draft resolution, which is included as Exhibit No. 1).
Prepared by:
William Cunningham
Contract Planner
Exhibits:
Submitted by:
b
Patricia L. Temple
Planning Director
1. Draft Resolution, including Conditions
2. Applicant's justification and letters of support
3. Aerial photo
4. Project plans
�I
EXHIBIT NO. 1
DRAFT RESOLUTION
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2003-
005 AND APPROVING AMENDMENT TO MODIFICATION
PERMIT NO. 2002 -049 (PA2003 -180) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was filed by Tom Stewart/Fleetwood Joiner Associates on
behalf of the property owners, Lawrence and Lana Tabak, with respect to property located at
3431 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 8, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a
Variance to construct a 7,325 square foot residence that exceeds the 24 -foot height limit and
encroaches up to 8 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. Both the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designate the site as Single Family Detached
Residential.
Section 2. A public hearing was held on September 18, 2003, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place
and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the requested variance is not justified
and is hereby denied for the following reasons:
a) Although the property has topological constraints, the applicant has chosen to heavily
excavate the property, which alleviates the topography constraint, rather than
developing the property utilizing the current physical characteristics. Therefore, there
are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property or use
referred to in the application that would preclude development of the property with a
single family residence designed in compliance with the height limit. The previously
approved plans for Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 show that a residence at or near
the maximum allowable floor area allowed can be designed within the 24 -foot height
limit.
b) The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right in that private view enhancement is not a General Plan
goal nor are private views protected by the Municipal code. The applicant's views are
maintained without the encroachment into the height limit, and full building area can be
achieved without the encroachment into the height limit. Therefore, approval of the
Variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right.
c) The granting of the application is not consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code
and will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations placed on
other properties in the vicinity within the same zoning district in that the encroachment
into the height limit for the purpose of enhancing a private view is not a goal of the
�f"
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 5
General Plan or a guarantee of the Zoning Code. Additionally, approval of the
Variance to the height limit does not achieve the goal of the Zoning Code in regards to
the reduction of nonconformities and consistent application of regulations.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the requested amendment to
Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 for encroachments within the front yard setback 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:
a) The proposed encroachments will be approximately 60 feet from the existing
sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the
sidewalk especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence does not
exceed the adjacent top of curb height, and is actually below the top of curb. The
majority of the proposed encroachment is below grade and will not be visible.
b) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and development
regulations by way of permitting modification and variance applications. This
procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area
and on this lot.
c) The proposed front yard encroachment is a reasonable design solution given the
topography and location of the site in that the encroachments on the first, second,
and third levels are below the driveway grade levels of the subject property and
cannot be viewed from the street level, and, further, that the proposed
encroachments are on the street side of the property.
d) The proposed modification will not be detrimental to persons, property or
improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the use in
that the portion of the encroachment that is above grade will not block line of sight
or views from the adjacent property.
e) The proposed modification will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining
residential properties in that the encroachments are located on the street side of
the property and the required side yard setbacks are maintained.
f) The proposed front yard encroachment will not obstruct views from adjoining
residential properties nor from the public in that the structure is located below the
grade of the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard, and the views from the adjacent
property are oriented to the south and opposite the side of the dwelling for which
the encroachment is proposed. Views from Inspiration Point are also not affected
as the encroachment is on the north side of the residence and the residence itself
is positioned between the encroachment and the view from Inspiration Point.
61r)
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3 of 5
5) The property is located at the end of the driveway access and no through
circulation is required beyond the property, and sufficient space remains for
vehicular access and maneuvering.
6) The proposed front setback modification will not require changes to the
improvements and natural bluff area located within the public right -of -way abutting
the property.
c) The 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).
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission denies
Variance No. 2003 -005 and approves Amendment to Modification Permit No. 2002 -049, subject
to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ".
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 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2003.
AYES:
ABSENT:
N
Earl McDaniel, Chairman
BY:
Michael Toerge, Secretary
�I
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDMENT TOMODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2002 -049
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan, floor plans and
elevations dated July 10, 2003 with the exception of revisions required to eliminate any
encroachments into the 24 -foot height limit and any revisions required by the following
conditions.
2. Amendment to Modification Permit No. 2002 -049 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 project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code
regulations, including the requirement for installation of a sprinkler and fire suppression
system.
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
5. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire
and Building Code.
6. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or 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, if necessary.
7. 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.
8. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specified by section 20.65.070 of the
Zoning Code.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a drainage plan shall be prepared
and approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments.
10. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Prior to the issuance of grading or building permit for new
construction, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared by the
applicant and submitted for review by the Building, Planning and Public Works
3�'
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 5 of 5
Departments. The WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of a grading or building permit for new construction.
11. As part of the submittal requirements for grading and building permits, an extensive
geotechnical investigation and geotechnical report shall be prepared. Included in the
recommendations shall be a shoring plan designed to protect the adjacent properties
and right of way from damage resulting from the temporary removal of lateral support.
12. During excavation and construction, vehicular access to adjacent properties shall be
maintained at all times.
33
EXHIBIT NO.2
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION
AND LETTERS OF SUPPORT
3�
ky
F L E E T
W
O
O
D B.
JO
&
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
July 21, 2003
Mr. James Campbell
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RE: TABAK RESIDENCE
3431 Ocean Blvd.
Corona Del Mar, CA, 92625
Reference: Title 20 Municipal Code Variance Request
Modification Permit # MD 2002 -049, Dated 5/29/02
Dear Mr. Campbell,
iMI)M7
We are hereby requesting the following variance items. We understand that each item
will be evaluated separately by staff and will also be considered separately for approval
in the public hearing.
1. Variance to Building Height Envelope. A variance is requested for the
reasons of providing privacy and allowing the proposed residence to align with
the existing adjacent structure.
To accomplish this we request to extend the upper two floors of the west
elevation (facing the ocean) 3'-6" beyond the vertical step of the building
envelope, in order to align the proposed building face with the existing adjacent
residence. This will allow privacy from the neighbor's existing deck, which
extends beyond and has potential views back into the proposed residence. In
addition, the variance, if granted, will protect the owners valuable ocean view
that would otherwise be partially blocked by the neighbors existing residence.
It should also be noted that the upper floor of the existing residence aligns with
the neighboring home at present, and that the owner simply wants to maintain
this existing alignment.
2. Variance to Front Yard setback. A variance is requested for the reason of
providing additional buildable space below grade, as has been approved for
other homes in the area, due to the topography of the site.
To accomplish this we request to extend a portion of the east elevation wall
(facing the driveway) to a distance of 2' -0" from the property line for a portion of
one story above grade (extending as shown on drawings into the modified front
yard setback) and for three levels below grade (extending 3' wide x 57' long into
the modified front yard setback).
A R C H I T E C T U R E - P L A N N 1 N G
P. O. BOX 10296 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Phone (949) 640 -0606 C
fleetjoiner @earthlink.net 3
A`
A zoning modification, referenced above, has been previously approved by the
City to allow a partial 5' -0" front yard setback. This additional extension would
allow the owner to have more functional floor areas on the lower living levels
within the home, since 45% of the site is required by the California Coastal
Commission to remain undeveloped, and this area is therefore functionally
unusable. The proposed encroachment will not affect any neighbors views nor
the public's views, since it will be mostly below grade and because the residence
is the last of a string of homes that terminates against Inspiration Point Bluff.
Several neighbors directly adjacent to the proposed residence have reviewed the
attached drawings, and have written letters of endorsement for this improvement to the
neighborhood with the variances requested. These letters are attached for review and
consideration.
The requested variances are considered by the owner to be important in establishing a
functional floor plan for.his family, while having little to no negative effect on neighbors'
and public views of the ocean and surrounding land features. In fact, the proposed low
massing of the home (below the maximum average roof height) will enhance the public
views across the flat roof forms, towards the ocean.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Fleetwood B. Joiner and Associates, Inc.
Thomas Stewart, Project Manager
Cc: Lawrence and Lana Tabak
Attachments: Letters of endorsement from local neighbors
Variance application and check for fees
Variance submittal drawings (Architectural)
Address labels
�Q
AIK
City of Newport Beach
Building Department
To Whom It May Concem:
I have reviewed the plans of our neighbors Lawrence and Lana Tabak, including the
proposed variance they plan to file for, as they will be submitted for public hearing.
I support and endorse this proposal as I feel it will not impair my views in any way.
Moreover, replacing an outdated dilapidated home with a more modern and attractive
structure will add to the beauty of the neighborhood.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
d
3�
City of Newport Beach
Building Department
To Whom It May Concern:
I have reviewed the plans of our neighbors Lawrence and Lana Tabak, including the
proposed variance they plan to file for, as they will be submitted for public hearing.
I support and endorse this proposal as I feel it will not impair my views in any way.
Moreover, replacing an outdated dilapidated home with a more modem and attractive
structure will add to the beauty of the neighborhood.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me.
S' c rely,
CU2� �JSr��J�
3�ItS C� N avS
r)o 3
3�
City of Newport Beach
Building Department
To Whom It May Concern:
I have reviewed the plans of our neighbors Lawrence and Lana Tabak, including the
proposed variance they plan to file for, as they will be submitted for public hearing.
I support and endorse this proposal as I feel it will not impair my views in any way.
Moreover, replacing an outdated dilapidated home with a more modem and attractive
structure will add to the beauty of the neighborhood.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
-3 Yz6'
f ts_
30.
EXHIBIT NO.3
AERIAL PHOTO
•
i \ Ste. \ •� .� "� • . a-
. •!'� -� � YES.. - „' / >A'll y �' „ -��. �. . �� t.� 3 / / �” As
` A ;k7
j Subiect Prceerty / : `'�'`�i
\ '" ti
1 'r
n 5C :. Y / • '� -a j 'w' \."� -ill 'do- '':
:Inspiration
Point
i.,:i?i'4 ... ' • -. :mow,'. �P `� y �
VICINITY MAP
NORTH
Y
I i
EXHIBIT NO. 4
PROJECT PLANS
,A�
s31mom ao
30N3GIS38 >IVUVi 3Hi HW5, a aoOM1331A
1111.0111vo ll0 v.. 06.1—p lnvaixvj ma o"
V3 A2.
6
'01VAO M-9 me E,
ta.momv � 5 -V ® i 5 3. C f
----OCEAN----. _B.OULE_V.ArD-_-_____
- r.
PARCEL 3
LOT -7
62.14 FF AT 2ND FLOOR
BITAURS h1fl1,
FIRFACH
X
7.77
Lu
�E o
0.
----OCEAN----. _B.OULE_V.ArD-_-_____
- r.
PARCEL 3
LOT -7
62.14 FF AT 2ND FLOOR
BITAURS h1fl1,
FIRFACH
0 0 0
X
7.77
Lu
0 0 0
7.77
0 0 0
U1
' ,_- YIIItl OfIIY'J 'tlYW 13O YHObO�
' OA10 NY3>O IL.[
3ONMISH NVOV1 3Hl
�• I
a.�ry
Y'S31VIOOSSV ONV
HNICt 'S 000M13313
�N,1 a3l:v d0 �.H�IHJtl00 ONd ..3 H3aOtlC 3w1 3db 5[,NIN,btlO ]F3wl
/
LU
CC
¢
NJ
�N,1 a3l:v d0 �.H�IHJtl00 ONd ..3 H3aOtlC 3w1 3db 5[,NIN,btlO ]F3wl
/
LU
CC
¢
/•
< I
y
U-
D.-
1 U.
C)
A.n ' Lr.A ,
W
I
i
U)
0
L A
1C
�1
7 :.:.g'
y E i
ab
/
0 I.
Tj
i
....
0
(6l
4
^.
LIJ
CR
Lu
I ,
tj
I
�
Irk
Wa °
p
\
\
°W9
z B �C
/ ('�
/\ \
?�
god 92'p
\
•\ '
\
�'
yk
w ��
C
�Y•
atn:
-
\ \\ IW
•\
59
a ••
7
n
y y
,
:2
H
i
���� r xmm�ro 'nrn wa rxovoo
'MlY MY3'JO IIYC
30NSGISIH N VSVi 3H1 J
F
.... o..`.. ".. ':�... now. ..o �...,. r... ......,',
S3IYIOOSSY ONY
tl3NI0P 'S OOOM13313
F
CL
. r `
•
d Z N T O
l r ��EXI TItJG I Y \, e
Lu
0 `.
CL
7 �,, k
ra.
�' F:1 _ -�3 -BYO r._. /'.` ��•� Fh . \,,, \\ 4':\ \- _�� .._
IIJOE9ITi�fi000'00'0'
..�.
I` :.I a
o
i )
Sti / °utlYa a •„o i�� ' �, � O
4 urn o
BREAKERS DRIVE
II
BEACH
M6 Js'
aA xl
omc
I
s i
I
i
Lu
OCEAN BOULEVARD
. r `
•
d Z N T O
l r ��EXI TItJG I Y \, e
Lu
0 `.
CL
7 �,, k
ra.
�' F:1 _ -�3 -BYO r._. /'.` ��•� Fh . \,,, \\ 4':\ \- _�� .._
IIJOE9ITi�fi000'00'0'
..�.
I` :.I a
o
i )
Sti / °utlYa a •„o i�� ' �, � O
4 urn o
BREAKERS DRIVE
II
BEACH
M6 Js'
aA xl
omc
I
s i
I
i
OCEAN BOULEVARD
YINbOiflY]'tlYN IiO YNON05 Yupn 1p•CUYY wpsppp pppw
'p/.l8 NY3]O ICpE .Dpp M]Yw IYOMpY
Opl Lnp ! xD� �YL gp
D531YIOOSSYONY 5 ¢: 9 X (h
o, „3�N3C11S3,�1 �V8V1 ,3H1 Da3xlor, a OOOM13oie ® - —,� - - -`_a —�
— \ - - -
M. Uu
i'.
� 6
I:
rr
I
=_ -
BREAKERS DrtIVl_ I
BEACH
cr-
a
z
Lu
cc
CL
OWO — 0 3o �rY ].YI x >r3. x,Owex ly
3ONDOIS3i1 >IVBVI 3HI o-83NI0f310 OOGM1331i
c$rw : u . n +ur rO Cacr .. r .._.�. rr• ,.� • v;. clrav if.irf:or y OOOmiil , i. 1...:.. fra J7 �r.:n ni Hrfl.. nr.f 3v: !fin STr Nr �; � .., 1.3411
E
.,r w
�/ t9
f J �
rc
W
>u
J !�
F- U
a�
w_
1
1
1
i
i
i LL N
i
a�
n _
1
q G
q l\
31� i
o s° r a:5 Cc
w �z V 9 25
u x Y 9n I
Fp ~ �ggp 1
I ff k ? €
- 33
1
• •
f] II
p O
Z
U
QUO
wr
zFpU
U 'r
I O�Ns
Z
11
2N
Y
u°�iY
i
Jill
�Z
a
B�5
G�,'Wt_'Sat3:
o 0
pje
S�e
i
� z�aaul
i Q
y
.a
L
n
I
��4}aa
l?� •a
X mmxm.• �� 1 �xO"_ xA I..
OUw
z rc r i ¢ E
.,r w
�/ t9
f J �
rc
W
>u
J !�
F- U
a�
w_
1
1
1
i
i
i LL N
i
a�
n _
1
q G
q l\
31� i
o s° r a:5 Cc
w �z V 9 25
u x Y 9n I
Fp ~ �ggp 1
I ff k ? €
- 33
1
• •
f] II
i
Jill
e
G�,'Wt_'Sat3:
�
1
y
.a
L
tlt
9tl
z
3 is
.,r w
�/ t9
f J �
rc
W
>u
J !�
F- U
a�
w_
1
1
1
i
i
i LL N
i
a�
n _
1
q G
q l\
31� i
o s° r a:5 Cc
w �z V 9 25
u x Y 9n I
Fp ~ �ggp 1
I ff k ? €
- 33
1
• •
f] II
N' �am eraoo tcrc'n n3Y^ in,n.. a ». "
LO
531tlI�O5Stl UNtl a c� Y diQ
o.
1ON3UIS3S >Ib>IVl 7N1 aaNior 's aooMiaaid
- - — - - - - - -- -
„oss,..dad vd .,.� o.,.:.�
a v:
t4 �Y
F+n 6� .I LLJ
2
U
W
� ea6 1
r B 't
I
I
I
1 i
I /
I %• �rMOr
aN
'/ / ' Et15t1NG CONS I
1
I
3
{ � J
_ 1 >
°
. "sd;e= 1..
c MI
n�Ei I
I
r ,
wj
5
S I
+jl I
I t
I
I
t
I
o �
a
J {IIrI
I1 �.
I
_ei
�
,
v 3 "s
I }.
I .
I
GN
I %• �rMOr
aN
'/ / ' Et15t1NG CONS I
1
I
3
{ � J
_ 1 >
°
. "sd;e= 1..
c MI
n�Ei I
I
r ,
wj
5
S I
+jl I
I t
I
I
t
I
o �
a
J {IIrI
I1 �.
LFR;I
-- nxno9np 'urn l3a rxovoo ou•�n urnp. w•o on
- - - - �—t/- 9at/n 1 x ra3oo H•el re eaNiou�e3 1eva I ao iu 3
ia i o oni3t
• ... J.
IONMIS]8
---- .. .__ r
I
-- - -- -- —
N
i�r I
ci
Ui
(n b;
e
i
I
i 1
N 1
O /2
U N • / FI
gio ` /• / f ^: �x it
a
. j w p
Y
I yy
nny
>
W�
o -E it C:... -- 0
v
uj
W
w .xW
f
aloPWs e - - --- — - - — --
i
w :t;
` 6
YY Y:
S
k ;a
•
-- nxno9np 'urn l3a rxovoo ou•�n urnp. w•o on
- - - - �—t/- 9at/n 1 x ra3oo H•el re eaNiou�e3 1eva I ao iu 3
ia i o oni3t
• ... J.
IONMIS]8
---- .. .__ r
I
-- - -- -- —
N
i�r I
ci
Ui
(n b;
e
i
I
i 1
N 1
O /2
U N • / FI
gio ` /• / f ^: �x it
a
. j w p
Y
I yy
nny
>
W�
o -E it C:... -- 0
v
uj
W
w .xW
f
aloPWs e - - --- — - - — --
i
w :t;
` 6
YY Y:
S
k ;a
•
VT I —
9ONgcJlSgd AVO)
supoossy aNY 3Hll
_77
ov
C/)
>
L.0
LU
Uj
F-
LU vl
0
I 111 ,.'IM,111111tml Jul OIL-
cc
0
z
ME
z
o
0
W's
0 2
00-
P:
X
0
S.
tI 0
>
TU
0 1
U) z
kp P';
'NA;
•
L,
E
I
z
0
xi01
4(
O,A
IF1.
;ov-om►o*
>1
67
• -Z
I
w
_z
J
C3
_z
rr
CO
2
0
w
z
Cr3
J
Q
w
2
0
2
0
w
Cn
O
r
O
rr
n
U
NPIR
W
Z_
J
0
_Z
rr
U)
2
0
W
Z
C'3
J
Q
W
2
0
2
0
co
c
/O
n
/O
rr
n
w
UJJ
Il
�yO
W
r�
V_
W
Z