HomeMy WebLinkAbout2050- VARIANCE - 602 Iris Ave RESOLUTION NO. 2050
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO.VA2016-004
TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION AND
ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED THIRD-FLOOR SETBACK,
AND TO ALLOW RAISED WALKWAYS AND RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN REQUIRED SIDE SETBACKS FOR A
NEW DUPLEX LOCATED AT 602 IRIS AVENUE (PA2016-159)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Andrade Architects, Inc. on behalf of Richard and Deana
Wolverton (Applicant), with respect to property located at 602 Iris Avenue, and legally
described as Lot 4 in Block 636, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of
California, as per Map recorded in Book 3, Page(s) 41 and 42 inclusive of Miscellaneous
Maps in the Office of the Recorder of said County, requesting approval of a variance.
2. The Applicant requests to allow portions of a new duplex to exceed the maximum height
limit and to encroach into the required 15-foot third-floor setback.Also included is a request
to allow a raised walkway that is greater than 18 inches in height from the existing grade
within the required side setbacks.
3. The subject property is designated Two-Unit Residential (RT) by the General Plan Land
Use Element and is located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. A public hearing was held on March 9, 2017, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant
effect on the environment.
2. The Class 3 exemption the construction of new small facilities or structures including a
duplex. The proposed project is the construction of a new duplex.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050
Page 2 of 8
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances), the following findings and facts
in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical
zoning classification.
Fact in Support of Finding:
The subject property is rectangular and 3,540 square feet in area, which is typical of
most lots within the Corona del Mar area that are zoned R-2. The topography, however,
is atypical as compared to other properties in the vicinity in that it slopes down from Iris
Avenue towards the center of the lot with a grade change of approximately 6 feet, and
then slopes up to the rear alley with a grade change of approximately 14 feet. It also
slopes down from the south side to the north side of the property with a grade change
of approximately 3 feet at some points. The variation in topography across the property
creates a gully and presents a unique circumstance that warrants the requested
variance, which helps the proposed development achieve comparable size and scale to
other surrounding R-2 properties.
Finding:
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The exception to the height limit and setback encroachments are necessary to allow a
structure to be built of comparable size and scale to developments on other R-2
properties in the vicinity. The buildable area of the subject property is 2,232 square feet,
the maximum floor area is 3,348 square feet, and the proposed total floor area is
approximately 3,346 square feet.
2. The Zoning Code requires structures to be measured from existing grade and third floors
to be centered such that the mass is away from the property lines. Other R-2 properties
in the vicinity that are generally flat or more consistently sloped may be developed with
structures that have third floors in compliance with the maximum height limit. Due to the
topographical constraint of the gully in this case, strict compliance with the Zoning Code
development standards precludes the property owners from enjoying this same privilege
of designing a compliant third floor.
01-03-17
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050
Page 3 of 8
3. The allowance of a raised walkway within the side setbacks allows the property owners
to construct a subterranean basement. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code
development standards would make a subterranean basement level infeasible and
would push the side yard areas down such that they are sunken, which is out of
character with the development pattern of the greater vicinity.
4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights, as the proposed duplex is of comparable size and height to
most other buildings in the vicinity.
Finding:
C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights, as the proposed project allows for development on the
constrained site that is comparable other developments in the surrounding area. The
variance allows the property owners to construct a duplex that meets their needs, is
close to the maximum floor area limit for the site, and provides the code required parking.
2. The variance allows the property owners to develop a duplex with a main level that is
accessible from the street elevation rather than designing a main level that is sunken
below.
3. See Facts in Support of Finding B-2 and B-3 above, which are also in support of Finding
C.
Finding:
D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege as it allows the property
owner to develop a duplex that is comparable to and compatible with developments on
other lots in the vicinity that are identically zoned. Other lots in the vicinity under the
same zoning classification are able to be developed with structures that have a
subterranean basement as well as a third floor. The proposed encroachments into the
required setbacks and proposed height limit exception do not result in a special privilege
as the variance allows the property owners to construct a duplex that meets their needs
while maintaining parity with surrounding development.
01-03-17
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050
Page 4 of 8
2. The proposed duplex will not exceed 29 feet from existing grade at the rear property
line; therefore, the property owners will not achieve additional height beyond what would
be permissible on a flat lot. Furthermore, when viewed from the street and alley
elevations, the structure will appear compliant with the height limit, consistent with other
homes constructed in the vicinity.
3. The adjacent properties across Iris Avenue benefit from a naturally raised pad, which
results in structures that appear taller in height from the street elevation. The proposed
exception from the height limit will not result in a development that is out of character
with the neighborhood.
Findinq:
E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of
the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The design of the structure includes adequate articulation, modulation, open volume
area consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code, and privacy for the abutting
properties.
2. The roof has been designed to pitch down towards the neighboring properties to
minimize bulk and mass, and the location of the third floor toward the rear of the property
where grades are higher will minimize the overall height of the building as viewed from
the center of the lot where the grades are the lowest.
3. The proposed encroachment of the raised walkways will not affect the flow of light or air
to adjoining residential properties as adequate separation is provided and no additional
above grade encroachments are proposed into the side setbacks.
4. The proposed setback encroachments for the raised walkway and related retaining walls
will not appear out of character as the taller improvements are towards the center of the
lot and away from the front and rear property lines. The proposed wall and privacy fence
design has been limited such that it does not negatively impact the abutting properties.
As conditioned, the fence above the retaining wall and walkway will be designed such
that it is open to allow light and air to pass through.
5. There are no public views over, or adjacent to the project site.
Finding:
F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section,
this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
01-03-17
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050
Page 5 of 8
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations through the variance review process. The variance procedure is intended to
resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot
configurations that exist in the City and on this property. Due to the topography of the
lot, height and design of buildings on neighboring properties, the height limit exception
and setback encroachments can be approved by the Planning Commission through this
variance request.
2. The subject property is designated for two-unit residential use and the granting of the
variance does not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, and will not
result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services.
3. Setbacks required by the Zoning Code govern the location of structures on a lot and
provide for open areas around structures for visibility and traffic safety, access to and
around structures, access to natural light and ventilation, separation of incompatible land
uses, space for landscaping and recreation, protection of natural resources, and safety
from fire and geologic hazards. The variance maintains appropriate setbacks for the
property consistent with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood and will
not contradict or circumvent this purpose.
4. Granting of the variance provides the project greater flexibility in satisfying the design
criteria established by the Zoning Code. Allowing the third-floor setback to encroach
toward the alley, reduces the height of the structure at the mid-point of the lot which
could impact the adjacent residences. Allowing the side yard walkways to be raised
also creates articulation of the side walls.
5. The third-floor setback encroachment reduces the overall height of the project by
pushing the mass of the third floor towards the rear of the lot where the existing grade _
is highest. Although it will be stacked above the second floor, the second floor is set
back an additional 4 feet from the required setback line such that it will not appear abrupt
and out of scale with the area.
6. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance No.
VA2016-004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"A,"which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning.
01-03-17
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050
Page 6 of 8
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 9T" DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Weigand
NOES: Koetting
ABSTAIN: Zak
ABSENT: None
BY:
a r, hairman
BY:
7
Peter Zak, Secretary)
01-03-17
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050
Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT"A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval, except as
modified by applicable conditions of approval.
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use
Permit.
4. This Variance may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they
determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or
maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to
constitute a public nuisance.
5. The retaining walls and fences within the side setback areas shall be designed in
accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.040(C)(5) in order to provide for adequate
passage of light and air into the neighboring properties.
6. The fence above the retaining wall and walkway within the front setback area shall be
no higher than the minimum amount required by the Building Code and shall be
designed such that it is 40-percent open.
7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall adequately address the existing
water course and potential storm drain pipe from the northerly properties in compliance
with all applicable requirements.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the plans shall be revised such that the roof deck
railing at the northerly side is set back a minimum of an additional two (2) feet from the
required side setback.
9. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval (Exhibit "A") shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the
building permits.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Division.
11. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
01-03-17
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2050
Page 8 of 8
current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
12. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within twenty-four (24)
months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of
time is approved in compliance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning).
13. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of
action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs)of every kind and nature
whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's
approval of the Wolverton Duplex including, but not limited to, Variance No. VA2016-004
(PA2016-159). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded
against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred
by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant
shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant
shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the
indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
01-03-17