Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Appeal Variance No. VA2013-002 PA2013-086o��EWPaR e = CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �gGIFOR�� City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 14 January 28, 2014 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949-644-3226, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner APPROVED: p, ,IL„ A``\II TITLE: Appeal of the PlanningvCommission's Decision to Deny Variance No. VA2013-002 for 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard (PA2013- 086) ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's August 22, 2013, decision to deny Variance No. VA2013-002. The applicant's request is to maintain/remodel an existing 1,785 - square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property including a two -car garage and attached two -car carport. The existing duplex is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. The proposed new construction would comply with the Zoning Code's development standards with the exception that additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area. A variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 104 -percent addition. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2. Find that the action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2014-' to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny Variance No. VA2013-002 (Attachment No. CC 1). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. I Appeal — Variance No. VA2013-002 (PA2013-086) January 28, 2014 Page 2 INTRODUCTION: Proiect Settin The property is located on the eastern portion of the Balboa Peninsula between Coronado Street and Adams Street. It is a typical 30 -foot -wide by 90 -foot -deep lot that is rectangular in shape and topographically flat. Proiect Description The applicant proposes to maintain and remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet. The existing structure is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Although all new construction will comply with the Zoning Code's development standards, the existing nonconforming structure will remain. Additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area by Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. A variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 104 -percent addition (54 percent over the allowable limitation). The proposed project will maintain the existing ground unit and add a two -car garage (345 square feet) with an attached two -car carport to the rear of the property. Connected to the garage will be a sun/laundry room along with a full bathroom and storage closets (195 square feet). The upper unit will be expanded by 1,449 square feet including a 947 -square -foot addition above the garage and carport areas and a 502 - square -foot third -floor master bedroom and bathroom. Also proposed is a 608 -square - foot roof deck and 187 square feet of additional deck area on the second floor. A more detailed analysis of the project is included in the excerpts from the Planning Commission staff report from August 22, 2013, which is attached as Attachment No. CC 5. The full staff report is available at www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1325. Background Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On August 22, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request. Four members of the public spoke in support of the project and one member of the public spoke in opposition. Those present in support stated that there is a need for redevelopment within the area and expressed concerns with weekly rentals while asserting the units would be owner -occupied by the Hormann family. The member of the public present in opposition expressed concerns related to garage access from the alley and maintenance of private views. The applicant's 2 Appeal —Variance No. VA2013-002 (PA2013-086) January 28, 2014 Page 3 representative stated the existing building on the project site was a unique physical characteristic of the property and should be considered as a development constraint. It was clarified by a member of the Planning Commission that a unique physical characteristic was relative to the lot itself and not built structures on the lot. After considering the concerns and evidence presented, the majority of the Planning Commission determined that there were insufficient facts in support of the required findings and acted to deny the Variance application with a 5 — 2 vote (see Attachment Nos. CC 4 and CC 6 for the adopted resolution and minutes from the August 22, 2013, Planning Commission meeting). Appeal of Planning Commission Decision On September 5, 2013, the property owners, Greg and Sharon Hormann, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The appellants believe the property is subject to special circumstances with which strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The appeal application and accompanying statements have been attached as Attachment No. CC 3. Alternatives If the City Council finds the facts do support the findings required to grant approval of the Variance application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 2), reversing the August 22, 2013, decision of the Planning Commission to deny the Variance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Should the City Council act to deny the request, the project would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15270 states projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Should the City Council act to approve the Variance, the project would be categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines — Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This exemption includes construction of a duplex in a residential area. The proposed project is a substantial addition to an existing duplex to be constructed in the R-2 (Two -Unit Residential) Zoning District. NOTICING: Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of - 3 Appeal —Variance No VA2013-002 (PA2013-086) January 28, 2014 Page 4 way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Submitted by: I W1 I C-101 Lei O , Attachments: CC 1 Draft Resolution to Deny CC 2 Draft Resolution to Approve CC 3 Application to Appeal the Planning Commission Decision CC 4 Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918 CC 5 August 22, 2013, Planning Commission Staff Report CC 6 Minutes from August 22, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting 4 Attachment No. CC 1 Draft Resolution to Deny W1 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING VARIANCE NO. VA2013-002 TO ADD MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA TO A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX LOCATED AT 417 AND 419 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD (PA2013-086). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by John Loomis of Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, with respect to property located at 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 8 of Block,?4.of Tract Balboa in the county of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded yin Book 4, Page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder'4 said County requesting approval of a variance. e'l > 2. The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the"existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear ;of, the property including a two -car garage and attached two -car carport. The existing duplex,is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side "setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. The proposed new construction would comply with, the Zoning Code -required development standards. Pursuant to the Zoning 'Code, additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area. Therefore, a variance is required to approve the proposed project as it would result in a 104 -percent addition. 3. The subject property is located within the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two -Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Two -Unit Residential — (30.0 — 39.99 DU/AC) (RT -E). 5. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2013, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 6. The Planning Commission determined findings for approval could not be made and denied the Variance application. 7. On September 5, 2013, property owners Greg and Sharon Hormann filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 7 City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 28, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. FINDINGS In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings are set forth: 1 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 torother properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; (� 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; C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights'of the applicant; D. Granting of the Variance will hot constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or 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; and 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. In this particular case, City Council has determined that none of the findings can be made for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is a typical 30 -foot by 90 -foot lot that is flat, rectangular in shape, and has no distinguishing features from the other Two -Unit Residential (R-2) properties in the immediate vicinity. The zoning change from mixed-use to residential does not constitute a unique circumstance inasmuch as several properties throughout the City have undergone zoning changes and may have nonconforming structures. Tmplt 0308111 8 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 4 Each property is granted the same rights under Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code. 2. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures. This provision is granted to all properties with nonconforming structures regardless of zoning classification. Although maintenance of the existing structure will preclude the property owner from building to the maximum floor area limitation (two times the buildable area), maintaining the existing structure is the choice of the property owner. If the property owner opted to demolish and reconstruct within the standards, the maximum floor area limit would be permitted. The limitation on additions to nonconforming structures is intended to encourage conformance over time. Granting of the variance request will substantiate and prolong the life of the nonconforming structure rather than encourage compliance as purposed in Chapter 20.38. 3. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures and the applicant is afforded the same property rights anted to other nonconforming properties. The property owner could demolish4ndreconstruct within the standards which would allow the maximum floor area limit \\ 4. Granting of the variance will allow a 1'04 -percent addition of the existing square footage whereas the Zoning Code limits additions to nonconforming structures at 50 percent. All other properties within the_vicinit'y are granted the same right if there exists a nonconforming structure. Allowing `an addition that is 61 percent greater than what is allowed by code is a special privileg6given-the nonconforming status of the structure on the property and the factcttiat all nonconforming structures are granted the same rights under the Zoning Code. 5. Although the subject property is designated for two-family residential use and the granting of the vanance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, it will remain nonconforming inasmuch as it does not comply with the Zoning Code and it is not`c,lear whether or not it will result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services,''; 6. There are no special circumstances on the property that warrant the granting of a variance. The Zoning Code intends to promote orderly development consistent with current code regulations. Acknowledgement of the existing structure that encroaches into the entirety of both side setback areas as well as the front setback area is inconsistent with this purpose. 7. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Single -Family Residential Dwellings) discusses compatibility with neighborhood development in terms of density, scale, and street facing elevations. The existing, nonconforming 3 - foot encroachments into the required 3 -foot side setbacks coupled with the encroachment into the front setback create a street -facing building facade that is inconsistent with other structures in the surrounding area under the same zoning classification. Tmpll: 03/08/11 9 City Council Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 8. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Variance No. VA2013-002 (PA2013-086) and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This decision was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other decisions in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on`the 28th ,day of January, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: r `_ �'K l t AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES,, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplt 03108111 10 Attachment No. CC 2 Draft Resolution to Approve 11 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. VA2013-002 TO ADD MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA TO A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX LOCATED AT 417 AND 419 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD (PA2013-086). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by John Loomis of Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, with respect to property located at 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 8 of Block4 of Tract Balboa in the county of Orange, State of Califomia, as per Map recorded in Book 4, Page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County requesting approval of a variance. �; l.✓ 2. The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear -of the property including a two -car garage and attached two -car carport. The existing duplex, is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. The proposed new construction would comply with the Zoning Code -required development standards. Pursuant to the Zoning Code,,additions_to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area. Therefore, a variance is required to approve the proposed project as it would result in a 104 -percent addition. 3. The subject property is located within the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two -Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Two -Unit Residential — (30.0 — 39.99 DU/AC) (RT -E). 5. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2013, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 6. The Planning Commission determined findings for approval could not be made and denied the Variance application. 7. On September 5, 2013, property owners Greg and Sharon Hormann filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 13 City Council Resolution No. _ Pape 2 of 5 8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 28, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which includes construction of a duplex. The proposed project is new construction to add onto the rear of an existing structure and maintenance of a duplex development on the subject property. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. //,� In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the w4ort Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings'4e 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. ` Facts in Support of Finding: 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: 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: 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. -14 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 5 Facts in Support of Finding: Finding: E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or 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: 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. Facts in Support of Findinq: SECTION 4. DECISION. '� ✓ NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ,CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE TO: IN N 1. Approve Variance No. VA2013-002 and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference., 2. This resolution shall "take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 28th day of January, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR 15 ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Council Resolution No. _ Paoe 4 of 5 w City Council Resolution No. _ Paae 5 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 27 10 Attachment No. CC 3 Application to Appeal the Planning Commission Decision 2j 20 APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING'COiIi MIRSSfilli®: 21 Application No. Name of Appellant Greg & Sharon Hormann or person filing: Phone: Address: 417 and 419 E. Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Date of Planning Commission decision: August 22 20 13 Regarding application of: PA2013-086 =(:l •-714l984-46f2•,,1 for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) See attached. J (,i Reasons for Appeal We feel that there are special circumstances regarding this project that privileges enioyed by other owners in the vicinity if the zonin; code was strictly enforced. Compliance with residential se acs would require demolition an reconstruction of the existing duplex. of FOR OFFICE USE ONLY �611°'1�j �(rw Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: cc: Appellant Planning (furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File Date `7'- r/-13 2013 . APPEALS: Municipal Code See. 20.64.030 Appeal Fee: $4,187.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2011-108 adopted on 11-22-11. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700-5000) 21 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to maintain and remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet. The existing structure is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Although all new construction will comply with the Zoning Code=required development standards, the existing nonconforming structure will remain. Additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area by Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. A variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 111 -percent addition (61 percent over the allowable limitation). The proposed project will maintain the existing ground unit and add a two -car garage (345 square feet) with an attached two -car carport to the rear of the property. Connected to the garage will be a sun/laundry room along with a full bathroom and storage closets (195 square feet). The upper unit will be expanded by 1,449 square feet including a 947 -square -foot addition above the garage and carport areas and a 502 - square -foot third -floor master bedroom and bathroom. Also proposed is a 608 -square - foot roof deck and 187 square feet of additional deck area on the second floor. 22 Receipt #1011371.005 Recreation & Senior Services Dept. 100 Civic Center Drive Bay E Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 644-3151 FAX: (949) 644-3155 Email: recreation@newportbeachca.gov DROP-IN CUSTOMER S, Payment Summary Check: $4,187.00 Check # 7318 Credit Card: $0 Account: $0 Financial Aid: $0 Total Received: $4,187.00 1;7 Customer Description prop -In Caatomer CC Planning Commission Appeal ACtion: rm ] :'t 5.:e Home phone: -- Emai.: -- ID: I Receipt #1011371.005 Sep 5, 2013 2:26 PM Prepared By: jbattioli Customer ID: 1 Home phone: Work phone: -- Cash: $0 Memo: $0 Gift CertiFcate: $0 Total Payments: Payment Plan: $4,187.00 $0 -J Charge $4,187.00 Total Charges $4,187.00 Total Payments $4,187.00 Balance $0 Page 1 of 1 Thank you for your choosing Newport Beach Recreation & Senior Services. Please visit us online at www.newportbeachca.gov https:Hactivenct017.active.com/cnbreg/servlet/sho).vReccipt.sdi?reccipLheader_id=91493... 09X22013 -24 Attachment No. CC 4 Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918 25 20 RESOLUTION NO. 1918 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING VARIANCE NO. VA2013- 002 TO ADD MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA TO A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX LOCATED AT 417 AND 419 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD (PA2013-086) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by John Loomis of Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, with respect to property located at 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 8 of Block 4 of Tract Balboa in the county of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 4, Page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County requesting approval of a variance. 2. The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property including a two -car garage and attached two -car carport. All new construction will comply with the Zoning Code -required development standards: The existing duplex is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing Floor area. Therefore, a variance is required to approve the proposed project as` it would result in a 111 -percent addition. 3. The subject property is located within the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two -Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Two -Unit Residential — (30.0 — 39.99 DU/AC) (RT -E). 5. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2013, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918 Facie 2 of 4 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings are set forth: 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; 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; C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 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, E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or 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, and 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. In this particular case, staff believes none of the findings can be made for the following reasons: The subject property is a typical 30 -foot by 90 -foot lot that is flat, rectangular in shape, and has no distinguishing features from the other Two -Unit Residential (R-2) properties in the immediate vicinity. The zoning change from mixed-use to residential does not constitute a unique circumstance inasmuch as several properties throughout the City have undergone zoning changes and may have nonconforming structures. Each property is granted the same rights under Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code. 2. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures. This provision is granted to all properties with nonconforming structures regardless of zoning classification. Although maintenance of the existing structure will preclude the property owner from building to the maximum floor area limitation (two times the buildable area), maintaining the existing structure is the choice of the property owner. If the property owner opted to demolish and reconstruct within the standards, the maximum floor area limit would be permitted. The limitation on additions to 04-24-2013 WN Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918 Page 3 of 4 nonconforming structures is intended to encourage conformance over time. Granting of the variance request will substantiate and prolong the life of the nonconforming structure rather than encourage compliance as purposed in Chapter 20.38. 3. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures and the applicant is afforded the same property rights granted to other nonconforming properties. The property owner could demolish and reconstruct within the standards which would allow the maximum floor area limit. 4. Granting of the variance will allow a 111 -percent addition of the existing square footage whereas the Zoning Code limits additions to nonconforming structures at 50 percent. All other properties within the vicinity are granted the same right if there exists a nonconforming structure. Allowing an addition that is 61 percent greater than what is allowed by code is a special privilege given the nonconforming status of the structure on the property and the fact that all nonconforming structures are granted the same rights under the Zoning Code. 5. Although the subject property is designated for two-family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, it will remain nonconforming inasmuch as it does not comply with the Zoning Code and it is not clear whether or not it will result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services. 6. There are no special circumstances on the property that warrant the granting of a variance. The Zoning Code intends to promote orderly development consistent with current code regulations. Acknowledgement of the existing structure that encroaches into the entirety of both side setback areas as well as the front setback area is inconsistent with this purpose. 7. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Single -Family Residential Dwellings) discusses compatibility with neighborhood development in terms of density, scale, and street facing elevations. The existing, nonconforming 3 - foot encroachments into the required 3 -foot side setbacks coupled with the encroachment into the front setback create a street -facing building fagade that is inconsistent with other structures in the surrounding area under the same zoning classification. 8. 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 denies Variance No. VA2013-002. 04-242013 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918 Page 4 of 4 2. 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 in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, and Tucker NOES: Brown and Myers ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None FI -ATA ma 04-24-2013 "Pi Attachment N®. CC 5 August 22, 2013, Planning Commission Staff Report 31 32 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 22, 2013 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Hormann Variance - (PA2013-086) 417 and 419 E. Balboa Boulevard Variance No. VA2013-002 APPLICANT: John Loomis, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner (949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property including a two -car garage and attached two -car carport. All new construction will comply with the Zoning Code - required development standards. The existing duplex is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area. A variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 111 -percent addition. 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ denying Variance No. VA2013-002 (Attachment No. PC 1). 33 Hormann Variance August 22, 2013 Page 2 VICINITY MAP ,. n � d f ` • 0't. °j rh �)° > o- ?p/h � 0 b',/'/Nv() �S. � F � � Q l.h �J'gQi ,. 4h �, a'S pS} 1', ° /%Jr '.••.r "y.,,�^/.�n{//h � °�` 'l . o. �... OI °IYpF� Subject Property • s, ?°/ 1 ') •�'� �4e m M1 g�� fir/ , (•"'A .�,� , �,�R ,:1'�<e •pY:9 pCFq .or 0 i} 4. 4{ /. ,OBo t • HF ji , �r ?� J4' �� ' (n V/V/V%//////jjj�m A YVVLL"5 v 5 • `Si I GENERAL PLAN ZONING FI ;f�F? _ � `'• l iJ J•F1.i � Vin`°` Lf J L i e e - LOCATION I GENERAL PLAN I ZONING I CURRENT II NORTH I Two -Unit Residential (RT1 I Two -Unit Residential (R-2) I DuDlexes II II WEST II Two -Unit Residential (RT) 1 Two -Unit Residential (R-2) I DuDlexes II 34 Hormann Variance August 22, 2013 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Proiect Settin The property is located on the eastern portion of the Balboa Peninsula between Coronado Street and Adams Street. It is a typical 30 -foot -wide by 90 -foot -deep lot that is rectangular in shape and topographically flat. Project Description The applicant proposes to maintain and remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet. The existing structure is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Although all new construction will comply with the Zoning Code -required development standards, the existing nonconforming structure will remain. Additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area by Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. A variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 111 -percent addition (61 percent over the allowable limitation). The proposed project will maintain the existing ground unit and add a two -car garage (345 square feet) with an attached two -car carport to the rear of the property. Connected to the garage will be a sun/laundry room along with a full bathroom and storage closets (195 square feet). The upper unit will be expanded by 1,449 square feet including a 947 -square -foot addition above the garage and carport areas and a 502 - square -foot third -floor master bedroom and bathroom. Also proposed is a 608 -square - foot roof deck and 187 square feet of additional deck area on the second floor. Background The existing 1,785 -square -foot structure was built in 1940 within the Commercial (C-1) Zoning District as mixed-use with a commercial storefront at the ground floor and one residential apartment above. Given that the lot was developed in a commercial district, no front or side setbacks were required and the structure was constructed to the side and front property lines. After it was initially developed, Districting Map No. 11 was adopted to require a 5 -foot front setback along East Balboa Boulevard. In 1951, the existing commercial storefront was converted into a residential unit which created a residential duplex on the property. On February 14, 1972, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1425 which changed the zoning classification from C-1 to Two -Unit Residential (R-2). Since the R-2 District requires 3 -foot side setbacks, the structure became nonconforming. In the 1970s after the rezoning to R-2, four of the properties within the subject block were redeveloped as duplexes in compliance with the setback requirements. 35 Hormann Variance August 22, 2013 Page 4 On September 12, 1994, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 94-44 which placed the block into the Balboa Village Specific Plan (SP -8) Zoning District as Residential Professional (RP). The RP designation required 3 -foot side setbacks, so the subject structure remained nonconforming. In 2001 two of the properties on the block were redeveloped with single-family residences in 2001 and one mixed-use structure was converted to a single-family use and was subsequently remodeled in 2007. This structure encroaches into the 5 -foot front setback; however, it still provides the required 3 -foot setbacks. The 2010 Zoning Code update returned the block to Two -Unit Residential (R-2) and current development standards require 3 -foot side setbacks in addition to the 5 -foot front setback along East Balboa Boulevard. Six of the other eight properties on the block have been redeveloped and comply with the required setbacks. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan & Coastal Land Use Plan The subject property is designated "Two -Unit Residential' (RT) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan ("GP") and "Two -Unit Residential' (RT -E) by the Coastal Land Use Plan ("CLUP") of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Land Use Policy 5.1.5 of the GP states that compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations should be considered a guiding principle for residential development. Similarly, Policy 2.7-1 of the CLUP states the City should continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. Although the proposed density is consistent with what is allowed by both the GP and CLUP, the proposed project will substantiate an existing nonconforming structure that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood inasmuch as the setback encroachments create a building fagade that appears larger and out of scale. Zoning Code The existing structure was initially made nonconforming by the establishment of Districting Map No. 11 in 1950 which created a required 5 -foot front setback along East Balboa Boulevard. Subsequently in 1972, the rezoning of the property from Commercial (C-1) to Two -Unit Residential (R-2) caused the structure to become more nonconforming as the development standards prescribed 3 -foot side setbacks. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning Districts General Development 30 Hormann Variance August 22, 2013 Page 5 Standards) and Setback Map S -2-E, 3 -foot side setbacks and a 5 -foot front setback are required. Given that the existing structure is considered legal nonconforming, due to encroachments into the front and side setbacks, it is subject to NBMC Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) which limits additions to 50 percent of the existing gross floor area within a 10 -year period. Variance Request The existing structure is legal nonconforming because it encroaches into the required front and side setback areas; therefore, it is subject to the development restrictions prescribed by NBMC Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) which limits additions to 50 percent of the existing gross floor area. In this case, a maximum addition of 892.5 square feet would be allowed. The applicant requests an approval of a variance to allow maintenance of the existing nonconformities in conjunction with a 111 - percent addition (1,989 square feet) to the rear of the property. Section 20.52.090.F (Variances, Findings and Decision) of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving a variance: 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; 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; C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 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; E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or 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; and 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. Staff believes that none of the findings for approval of the variance request can be made. 37 Hormann Variance August 22, 2013 Page 6 The surrounding area is primarily developed with residential duplexes which maintain the required setbacks. Most of the properties appear to comply with the 5 -foot front setback requirement as the built structures are setback from the street. The existing structure on the subject property encroaches into the entirety of both 3 -foot side setbacks and 3 feet 7 inches into the 5 -foot front setback. These encroachments contribute to an inconsistent development pattern along East Balboa Boulevard as shown in the figure below. Relative to Findings 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'F', there are no special or unique circumstances that warrant the granting of a variance and other properties within the vicinity are granted the same provisions when a nonconforming condition exists. Pursuant to NBMC m Hormann Variance August 22, 2013 Page 7 Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures), nonconforming structures are limited to an addition that is 50 percent of the existing gross floor area of the existing structure within any 10 -year period. The intent of this limitation is to allow orderly development while encouraging nonconformities to become conforming over time. All structures that are considered nonconforming are granted this same privilege by the Zoning Code. Granting of the variance request to allow a 111 -percent addition to the existing structure could be considered a special privilege as other properties are limited to a 50 -percent addition. Additionally the lot is rectangular in shape, relatively flat, and not constrained by topography. With respect to Finding 'D', granting of the variance request could constitute granting of a special privilege. Six of the eight other properties on the immediate block have redeveloped as conforming duplex or single-family structures. Of the remaining two, the property at 403 East Balboa Boulevard was developed as a seven -unit apartment complex in 1959 and remains legal nonconforming. The property at 407 East Balboa Boulevard is a legal nonconforming single-family structure that encroaches 5 feet into the required 5 -foot front setback, but maintains the code -required 3 -foot side setbacks. It should be noted this nonconforming structure was granted a modification permit in 2007 to allow an addition between 25 and 50 percent of the existing gross floor area — an amount that is now allowed by right in the current Zoning Code. It is acknowledged the structure has existed for 73 years without proving detrimental and Finding 'E' could be supported; however, staff believes the code allowance of a 50 - percent addition allows reasonable development of the property and in this case all findings for approval cannot be made. Alternatives The Planning Commission may determine that the findings for approval can be made and approve the variance by adopting the draft resolution for approval (Attachment No. PC 2). The Planning Commission may also make the same findings for approval, but may approve a modified project for a smaller addition. Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Should the Planning Commission act to approve the request, the project would be categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines — Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This exemption includes construction of a duplex in a residential area. The proposed 3� Hormann Variance August 22, 2013 Page 8 project is a substantial addition to an existing duplex to be constructed in the R-2 (Two - Unit Residential) Zoning District. Public Notice Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of- way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: �. �� Beja i M. eba As tant Planner ATTACHMENTS C r stt'n r e l a o i f p v PC 3 Applicant's Justitication PC 4 Applicant's Letter of July 23, 2013 PC 5 Project Plans Submitted by: *Clw a—Wisnesi, ICP, Deputy Director Template.dotx: 05/24113 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Justification 41 Hormann Residence Project Description Remodel existing duplex. Maintain existing non -conforming side yard setbacks. Construct new 2 -car garage and 2 -car carport, plus add 1.95 SF at first floor. Construct a new 947 SF addition to the second floor unit above the garage and carport and add a new 502 SF partial third floor. Construct new decks at the second floor (191 SF) and third floor (609 SF). Fire sprinkler existing residence and proposed additions. Hormano Residence Project Variance Justification 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g. location, shape, size, surrounding, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. There are special circumstances regarding this specific parcel that have caused the existing conditions to become non -conforming. The existing building was constructed about 1940 when the area was zoned Commercial. The lower floor was a commercial use with a residence above. As a result, the lower floor was built to "0" side yard setbacks. In the 1960's or 1970's, the zoning was changed to R-2. R-2 zoning requires a 3 ft. wide setback at each side yard. The result is that the property that was originally fully conforming to the original zoning is now legal non -conforming. 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under and identical zoning classification. It is our understanding that strict code compliance would limit the amount of area that can be added to the site to 50% of the existing building area, provided that the parking was brought into conformance. This is substantially less than the two times the buildable area (minus open space) allowed if there was no non -conformity. Therefore, the non- conformity, caused by the city changing the zone has created a hardship for the Owner by reducing the maximum buildable area for the site. 3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The existing building has been well maintained and is in good condition. It would be a severe financial hardship to remove the existing encroachment into the required side yards. This would make the proposed building expansion financially unfeasible. PA2013-086 for VA2013-002 417 & 419 E. Balboa Boulevard Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. —John Loomis 42 4. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege nconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Granting of this Variance application will not create a special privilege because it would allow the construction of the same maximum floor area as allowed elsewhere in this zone. 5. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public conveniene, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Granting of this Variance will not be detrimental or endanger neightboring properties. We have met with the Fire Department and Building Department to discuss this matter. The existing side yard walls are 8 in. thick CMU construction at the first floor that equal over a 4 Hr. Fire rating. One existing bathroom window on the east side will be infilled. The entire project including the existing building will be fully fire sprinklered. Also, the Fire Department is satisfied with access to the site. Because the proposed three story addition is located on the rear half of the property, the Planning Department has, no concerns about the scale and mass of the project because two story massing is maintained along Balboa Boulevard. They feel that the proposed project will be consistent and compatible to the character of the existing neighborhood. 6. 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 plate. The granting of this Variance shall not conflict with the intent of this code because the Variance process was created to deal with existing anomalies such as this situation. No precedent is being set because by the approval of this Variance results in the same development rights already enjoyed by neighboring properties in this zone. IN Attachment No. PC 4 Applicant's Letter of July 23, 2013 44 thirtieth July 23, 2013 City of Newport Beach Mr. Patrick Alford, Planning Director 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Hormann Residence Variance Application 417- 419 E. Balboa Boulevard PA2013-086 Dear Mr. Alford: founding principals john c. loomis, architect james c. wilson, architect principal elwood I. gulley, architect The purpose of this letter is to ask that the City Planning Department reconsider the above referenced project and support of this Variance application due to the following two reasons: Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. (TSA) made every serious effort to coordinate with staff on this project, and to make recommendations to our clients based on staff comments and staff support. We met with staff on five (5) different occasions to review various design alternatives. During our last meeting, we met with Jay Garcia to explain that we had been successful in solving technical issues and obtaining support for retaining the existing structure from both the Building and Fire Departments. The Fire Department felt that the existing 8 inch thick, folly grouted concrete block walls at the side property lines would yield a fire rating of 4 -hours, making this a much safer condition than most unrated buildings in the R2 zone. They also requested that both the existing building and the new addition be fully fire sprinklered. The Building Department concurred with the Fire Department comments and also asked that the existing small bathroom window on the east sidewall of the property be removed and infilled with block construction. TSA and our client's were pleased with the Fire Department and Building Department support and felt that their requirements were reasonable. I explained to Jay, who I have known for 25+ years, that even with the technical problems solved we would not recommend that our clients pursue a Variance unless the planning staff architecture historical rehabilitation planning 2821 newport blvd. ne•wpon beach califomia 92663 phone (949) 673-2643 fax (949) 673-8547 email: tsaine©aol.com 45 would support the project. He reviewed the drawings and photos to examine issues such as neighborhood context, mass, and scale of the project and the compatibility of Balboa Boulevard street elevation. Since the proposed three-story addition will be located on the rear half of the site, Jay felt that the existing street elevation is consistent in terms of mass and scale with neighboring properties. He also felt that the project, as proposed, was consistent with, and compatible to the existing neighborhood context and that staff would support this project. I then asked him specifically whether staff would support our Variance application because I was reluctant to proceed without staff support. He said, "Yes". I relayed Jay's comments to my clients and, based on his commitment of staff support, they agreed to proceed with the Variance application. At that point in time, I had no idea that Jay would soon retire. About a month later, upon my return from a trip to Egypt and long hospital stay in Germany, I found out that Jay is retired and that staff is now not supportive of our Variance application. We requested a meeting with staff to discuss the matter. On June 24th, we met with Ben Zdeba and Gregg Ramirez. Ben explained his reasoning in not supporting this Variance as follows: He did not feel that this application meets the criteria as a unique circumstance; and he also felt supporting the Variance would result in sustaining the existing setback nonconformity for some time into the future. While we can understand Ben's point of view, we feel a more in-depth review of the facts clearly shows that the circumstances regarding this project are very unusual and unique to the site and the existing "0" setbacks are not detrimental to the neighborhood visually or from a life safety perspective. The existing structure was originally constructed in 1940, as a 2 -bay commercial space at the first floor and a single-family apartment at the second floor. At that time, the area was zoned C-1 commercial with residential uses allowed at the second floor; the required setbacks at the C-1 first floor commercial space were "0" for front and side yards. The sidewalls located at the property lines were constructed with 8 in. thick concrete block that was fully grouted, equivalent today to a 4 -hour rated firewall. The setbacks for the residential unit at the second floor were front 5 ft. and sides 3 ft. Many buildings similar to this structure still exist directly to the east of this property on E. Balboa Boulevard where the zoning is still commercial. In 1972, the City elected to change the zone in the 400 East Block from commercial to R2. Inherent in any zone change from commercial to residential is the need for 3 ft. minimum side yard setbacks for light and ventilation and egress. This resulting zone change created a new nonconformity at 417 & 419 E. Balboa Boulevard where no nonconformity had existed previously. 417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard — Page 2 40 Over the years, most of the neighboring older structures began to deteriorate and were torn down and replaced with new, larger duplex units during the 1970's and 1980's. My client's property was apparently very well built and well maintained. The lower floor that was originally a two bay commercial space was apparently converted to a second residential unit in 1972, after the zone change. It is interesting to note that this conversion and remodel to residential use was permitted without any requirement to correct the non -conforming setbacks. I think the City uses the term "legal, non -conforming" to describe this condition, since the work was fully permitted. When my client's purchased the property in 2008, it was their intent to construct a substantial addition over a new garage and carport addition at the rear of the property and to minimize work at the existing front building. The purpose of the addition was to accommodate family gatherings with their kids and grandkids during holidays and weekends. There were several design options that we considered. The first was to bring the parking into conformity, but keep the existing setback nonconformities. This approach would limit the size of any addition (including the garage) to 50% of the existing building area, given the existing nonconforming setbacks. This would mean that my clients could add only about 600 sq. ft. of actual living area to the existing building. Unfortunately, they could not accommodate their program requirements within this limited new area. So, the only remaining options were to either correct the nonconformity, or apply for a Variance. This would allow my client's to fully develop their property to meet their program requirements and build up to 2x the net buildable area minus the open space requirement, just like their neighbors. To help evaluate correcting the nonconforming setbacks, we have had two reputable contractors look at this building. Both concluded that to increase the side setbacks would require the demolition of the entire existing structure and rebuilding. This would mean that my client's, who have made substantial cosmetic improvements to the upper unit, would have to demolish their perfectly serviceable home and start over with a vacant lot, and rebuild to correct the existing nonconforming setbacks. This would more than double the cost of their proposed project and make it financially unfeasible. So, the only realistic remaining option was to consider a Variance. While I realize that economic hardship is not a justification for the approval of a Variance, I would hope that the Planning Commission would think that having to demolish an existing duplex to eliminate an existing nonconformity to enjoy normal property rights is a "unique circumstance" particularly when the nonconformity is not detrimental to neighboring properties and the proposed project is consistent with the neighborhood design context. Regarding Ben's second concern about perpetuating the nonconformity, if the nonconformity is not detrimental to the neighbors, is not a fire hazard or a threat to life safety and is not inconsistent with the neighborhood design context, what is the benefit to the neighborhood or 417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard — Page 3 47 the city in correcting this nonconformity? The only answer is that the nonconformity would be eliminated for its own sake. Does this really make any sense? Did the Planning Commission that approved the zone change in 1972 anticipate this kind of anomaly? Yes, they did. That is exactly why the Variance process was included in the Newport Beach Zoning Code: to provide relief from strict code compliance where unusual conditions or circumstances exist. In conclusion, we ask that staff support this Variance based on the following findings that justify this application: 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (i.e. location, shape, size, surrounding, topography, or other physical features) that does not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. The existing building was constructed about 1940 when the area was zoned Commercial. The lower floor was a commercial use with a residence above. As a result, the lower floor was built to "0" side yard setbacks. In 1972, the zoning was changed to R-2. R-2 zoning requires a 3 ft. wide setback at each side yard. The result is that the property that was originally fully conforming to the original zoning is now legal, non -conforming. The circumstances are unique because the correction of the nonconformity would require the complete demolition of the existing duplex. 2. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Strict compliance with the zoning code would limit the size of any proposed addition to about 2,600 s.f. or about 1,000 s.f. less than allowed to neighboring properties. 3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Granting of this Variance is necessary so that my clients will not have to demolish their duplex in order to enjoy their property rights. 4. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning districts. Granting of this Variance Application will not create a special privilege because most non -conformities can be corrected without requiring total demolition. This is an unusual and unreasonable circumstance. Also, it should be noted that my clients are 417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard — Page 4 IM correcting other existing non -conformities such as providing the necessary parking and fire sprinklering at the existing residence. 5. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the city, or 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. Granting of this Variance will not be detrimental or endanger neighboring properties. We have met with the Fire Department and Building Department to discuss this matter. The existing side yard walls are 8 in. thick CMU construction at the first floor that equal over a 4 -hour fire rating. One existing bathroom window on the east side will be infilled. The entire project, including the existing building will be fully fire sprinklered. The Fire Department is also satisfied with access to the site. When completed, this project will be safer than most of the other buildings in this zone. Because the proposed three-story addition is located on the rear half of the property, the Planning Department had no concerns about the scale and mass of the project and has found it to be consistent and compatible to the character of the streetscape and the existing neighborhood. 6. 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. The granting of this Variance will not conflict with the intent of this code because the Variance process was created to deal with existing anomalies such as this situation. Full compliance with the Zoning Code would require an unfair and unreasonable remedy. The Variance process was created to provide relief from exactly these types of situations. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, 4�_ John C. Loomis Principal cc: Greg & Sharon Hormann 417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard - Page 5 4J Attachment No. PC 5 Project Plans SO SYMBOLS o E) naw J O —au sruw MAW11 UK ^� vfd4x 44iLN�nT ver�_.�ne v®J�w.x.in'• ru r 1 �!wvn xNtsum � 4tl5rn'I:IyVIInR} ABBREVIATIONS nonr MU AW W4:uYn Wl I.Y. 61 nrvl ": A.U}I I vMra belA O.v Ymawn I.nA1nA[Uu-'N>wie AP-K*1 A.C. ertvK." A A! IIIU wlmN OLW UL%V bl� NaExi .V pab .YxS rvnnrn4 M+s c1A cR ..:ulu vR rGs Nm' w+rrl cn GT rap: v rtrwn IT Nrp+ Fn CU.Vf emvnm RE" 3 WNd b UPrRR 6eP�i RU ' rmN�Y Ux'fI51 3»'in4r) SCIIFJ) vhMk W eN vi SJF NxrY IQ T AIv31URIrC( 5T ruutory uu PJ =21 LM evinu T In�eM PA II IVMmvO TIIN Uw m;41vu1 .pvaU PoE w:1 I¢e NteJt IwR TYP ryAvil IE uexviu'e t r4Y1 .A H4 M1.av ! S IRP ivvJ Il: v tVl av IN em J R R4 (m Ivp.ppwy }tN R U R11^a'utuvatl ov Svl.mi¢1 OTP.UU. iYWem6.d A W HORMANN RESIDENCE 417 & 419 EAST BALBOA BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 VIICI rF Y MAP �I MRQQRErJ��mOmJA •.EIDIm�®��l9 OPR v m m PROJECT SUMMARY PROJEUADDRUS' u>a nururenlAon nvw. NCP'IORfUGfN.G9:151 OFSCRIM0N0F W0M 0. WIOORCt6TNO WPW%. }Initnnw 11THIA NON.CIXVPoRNIlY SNER 01. Smnn(.1:5. CQTIRVCf NY.w SCAR4,RA4UA z GR GRron.o<Irs wo usw4o}u R 5f4Rn4fi nipPST FlAp1:. WN1TlVlTn T1M' aCAU..A.UANEN'.l-T UQ Il(gR. MUv,U[NCty Lx.EvnmR. nA. 9K1}%1£A P):IPx1AY PfitNf?Y46 MUM}EU nlNma%s. mnl? i11RIMARYSUNLLS . '!p}115 UISIRIR: 0.x AIN, vun.nwx C.11 l . x{UCun4N Al...U111J-@1.vMti.&A nlrRavc lEnTs wsTNcr covsTRncnav rveN aR SinRRSe APPLIfMI f:(Y10L: xmocilN¢W, ewmsrW.irRla mIPc.Rloa.rRcw lcm w1oal:laW.!]mlblcW. aWl yllnfYllmrl,Llnlwkilrv� ICNCI xolRren..W.mwoE n.vlcm PROJECT TEAM O4VNFR <IaW a NIAPUN INRMn%N NkCIRtln...CAVU. W10NrtlFAITi.[A%fb] rll: tl41 VSYf1x GWL.. umOEbuemmn CU}TACE. Cttl A gam I lmwen ARCIIITFCI' Ixlm�I STPPJTnRL1111PLT5. P'C. w'NM eI.vU AiWMIR UGI:I I. CA 9EI61. n1: wvnxwJ Pn%: �e1bhtY1 Et1Al1: lidvv Iwlrw.tn mxrnrnx hl..r SHEET INDEX CVRI lDVE4$RL'f:SA WfTSIRMII n -I evEwxc PJRsrasrom Pvo4R MMNFAfO.nAM A.. Pxlmna Roovruvlwlo.PGx x I\TF,RInk El.fl'RroM AJ TP.wxIRCxL SFASNUfIIWR PLIV A+ UMQ.. %.tN4RCOPYLW `'EN'E.C,QQA kali 1,, Ad r LllVx1UR PJLVnIIONi m r-eru ra. e SECOND F-0OR ----- L9 Lei u II !mom n. a. II rt- w+ -nom r II 11 R FLOOR Awl A-1 1 EXISTING FLOOR PLANSIDEMO. PLANS F -I m { i eiw SCIRH ELEVATION O -_ - - - - —_ --------------- WELT ELEVATION O 3 0 mmnw ___ .• _________________________________________ ___ wn -___ T _ ___•. __ _ ..___ 5 P 5 g " i mu awa i um mb NO2N ELEVATION O Ei T ELEVATION O EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS •+P 2 :•.a - -VW�. -------------------- ---------------- 3 EXISTING ROOF PI-ANIDEMO. PIAN I I I WDA 1 1 1 1 o i i I i I SECC.VO ftAOR 06 0 moxr+w nv —� —,r— _____________ — v.-------- „way r .........._........ E a 5. v�.w / • V �. s wa.un •...o.+.a r I pp O`• Oi - 1 mw.nw na �,lmw I I �_ Iv.l '• I mwwm w JIII i � I I E7R5-=waR PM AW NEW FLOOR PLANS •p 1 I , q mmrs onmc � 'a.mwcew ----------- I dtF I I � F NEW ROOF PLAN •� 2 , I —_____r_r_ I � i I IIIII i � I £ s I I I I I I 1 � I I I c { IS ... Fo I NEW THIRD FLOOR PLAN .w 1 3 � a 9 I , q mmrs onmc � 'a.mwcew ----------- I dtF I I � F NEW ROOF PLAN •� 2 , I —_____r_r_ I � i I IIIII i � I £ s I I I I I I 1 � I I I c { IS ... Fo I NEW THIRD FLOOR PLAN .w 1 5 UT ELEVATION O N9i 0.2u.Lyn'I) NORM EE�AIXOOnN O (GS E , ELEVATION O BftcwN b LLJ a ■ li e .e _ _ 1 1 m.M ci�r�w°nnaaa••. WOST 9MIMAM0 On NEW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS • « 1 ■ thirtieth street architects 1110 August 21, 2013 Nfr. Ben Zdeba, Planning Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Correspondence Item No. 2a Hormann Residence PA2013-086 Re: Hermann Residence Variance Application 417- 419 E. Balboa Boulevard PA2013-086 Dear Ben: jounding principals john c. loomis, architect james c. wilson, architect Principal chimed L guae>, architect I have found an error in our area summary that affects the % increase of the proposed project. We had inadvertently subtracted the area of this building that we intend to demo as part of the work. The correct summary is attached that lowers the % of the requested addition to 104% of the existing. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Greg & Sharon Hermann architecture 2821 newpoil blvd. phone (949) 673-2643 historical rehabilitation nowporl bench fax (949) 673.8547 planning califamin 92663 email: minc@ool.com * 120 SF TO BE DEMOLISHED FROM (E) SECOND FLOOR OPEN VOLUME LOCATION TOTAL S FIRST FLOOR 239 SECOND FLOOR 187 TOTAL 426 OTAL REQUIRED OPEN VOLUME (SF) _ 15% x (85'-, 24) = 306 SF 159 LOT DATA DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED S DESCRIPTION REQUIRED/ ALLOWED EXISTING PROPOSED LOT AREAS . FI'. 5 000 2,850 2,850 SECOND FLOOR *778 1 947 1,605 THIRD FLOOR MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT: 502 SUB -TOTAL: 1,9051 1644 FLAI' ROOF 24-0" +/- 18'-0" NIA SLOPED ROOF; M IN. 3:12 29'-0" NIA 29'-0" 1 TOTAL: 1,905 1 1,989 SETBACKS: BUILDABLEAREA S =2sI(85'.x24') -306 SFj 3774 SF FRONT Y-0" 1'-5" F-5" SIDE YARD (WEST) T-0" Y-0" T-0"(N)ADDITION SIDE YARD EAST T -On 0'-0" T-0° ADDTITON REAR ALLEY 5'-0" 54'-0" 5'-0" 353 795 1,148 * 120 SF TO BE DEMOLISHED FROM (E) SECOND FLOOR OPEN VOLUME LOCATION TOTAL S FIRST FLOOR 239 SECOND FLOOR 187 TOTAL 426 OTAL REQUIRED OPEN VOLUME (SF) _ 15% x (85'-, 24) = 306 SF 159 PROJECT DATA DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED S TOTAL LIVING AREA: FIRSTFLOOR 1.1271 195 1,322 SECOND FLOOR *778 1 947 1,605 THIRD FLOOR 0 l 502 502 SUB -TOTAL: 1,9051 1644 3,429 1 GARAGE: 0 1 345 345 1 TOTAL: 1,905 1 1,989 3 774 BUILDABLEAREA S =2sI(85'.x24') -306 SFj 3774 SF DECKS: FIRST FLOOR 0 0 0 SECOND FLOOR 353 187 540 THIRD FLOOR 0 608 608 TOTAL: 353 795 1,148 * 120 SF TO BE DEMOLISHED FROM (E) SECOND FLOOR OPEN VOLUME LOCATION TOTAL S FIRST FLOOR 239 SECOND FLOOR 187 TOTAL 426 OTAL REQUIRED OPEN VOLUME (SF) _ 15% x (85'-, 24) = 306 SF 159 WE Attachment No. CC 6 Minutes from August 22, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting &1 02 VIII. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chair Hillgren MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2013 Approve and file comments submitted Interested parties were invited to address Chair Hillgren closed public comments for this 8/22/2013 minutes. on this item, there was no response and Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and s nded by Com loner Brown and canted (6 — 1) to approve the minutes of August 8, 2013, as correc AYES: ri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS/ Lawler ABSENT: None Hillgren addressed the process for hearing Public Hearing items. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 HORMANN VARIANCE (PA2013-086) Site Location: 417 and 419 E. Balboa Boulevard Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba presented details of the staff report including a description of the proposed project, existing conditions, Zoning Code requirements, particulars of the variance, the project site, location, lot size, surrounding properties, access, and background. He addressed setbacks, conformance with the Zoning Code, details of the addition, required findings for Issuing a variance, and recommendations. Interested parties were invited to address the Planning Commission on this item. John Loomis, architect for the applicant, presented a brief history of the site and noted changes in Zoning over time. He addressed the fifty (50%) percent rule and other options considered including altering the existing building to conform to the setback requirements. He stated that per the advice of contractors the cheapest way to bring the property into conformance would be to demolish the existing building and reconstruct it. He reported that the option would not be financially feasible; therefore, the only option was to request a variance. He stated that there is no other way of making the property compliant unless it is completely demolished and rebuilt. Therefore, the variance is not a special privilege, but a necessity. He reported that the Fire Department is comfortable with the proposal and addressed compatibility with the neighborhood and benefits to the community. He noted the allowance of variance to deal with anomalies. Vice Chair Tucker noted that the Planning Commission does not make policies but operates under existing policies. He addressed circumstances applicable to properties (not buildings) in consideration of variances and noted It does not take into account unusual circumstances as laid out by Mr. Loomis. He noted that Mr. Loomis can always appeal the issue to Council. Mr. Loomis referenced "unique circumstances" and felt that it would apply to the building on the property noting that it is infeasible to remove the building. Greg Honnann, property owner, reported that the non-conformance was not reported when he purchased the property. He commented on his intent to expand the property but explained that it is financially unfeasible to demolish the property. He indicated a belief that had the plans been submitted earlier, City staff would have supported the expansion, but that the application was postponed due to the architect's illness. He requested Page 2 of 12 03 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/22/2013 that the Planning Commission take into consideration those circumstances and the sequence of events in granting the variance request. In response to an inquiry by Chair Hillgren, Mr. Hormann reported that Mr. Loomis had several meetings with the Planning Division before his illness and they were on board with the plan, but that subsequently, the Senior Planner assigned to the project retired. Vice Chair Tucker referenced a letter indicating that the Senior Planner was on board with the plan. He noted that recommendations from staff are not always agreed to by the Planning Commission and that the Commission has the authority, to approve or not approve recommendations. He doubted that the Planning Commission's action would be different if staff were recommending approval. W.R. Dildine commented on a nearby property that is under similar conditions and expressed support of the variance, noting that the owners have made substantial improvements to the property. He felt that the project will help relieve existing parking problems in the area. George Hajjar, adjacent neighbor, commented positively on the condition of properties in the area and felt that the subject property is "out of sync" with the area. He expressed concerns with access to his garage because of parked cars and felt that if the variance is allowed, he will continue to have difficulties accessing his property. He reported an existing gas meter that sticks out of the ground and felt it poses a danger and that it should be put underground. He expressed concerns with the project blocking his views and stated his support for denying the variance. Jerry Bradfield, adjacent neighbor, spoke in support of the proposed variance and noted the uniqueness of the area. He addressed weekly rentals and related problems in the area and stressed that the applicant will be living in the residence. He commented positively on the applicant's efforts to integrate the old with the new. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the variance. Dillon Colucci, adjacent neighbor, voiced support for the proposed variance and opined that if a property already has a structure on it, the structure would be included in the topography of the lot. He felt that the existing structure on the subject property meets the definition under "unique circumstances" and commented positively on the proposed project. Ryan Snep, adjacent neighbor, addressed improved parking by the proposed project and addressed its compatibility with the surrounding area. He spoke in support of the proposed variance. Jim Mosher felt that if the Planning Commission votes for the resolution for approval, it would need to be rewritten stating facts in support of the findings. If the Commission were to vote for the draft resolution of denial, he pointed out grammatical errors within the resolution. There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission on this item, Chair Hillgren closed the public hearing. Commissioner Myers reported visiting the property, having carefully examined the report, and as a result stated his support of the findings and agreed with the unique circumstances applicable to the subject property, which would include the existing structure. He stated that he would vote against the resolution to deny the variance. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Myers in terms of findings in support of the variance. He encouraged developing ideas to help the applicant proceed with the project. He addressed comments received in support of the project and felt that consideration should be given to the fact that the owner will reside on the property. In terms of the proposed square footage, he felt that there are comparable properties surrounding the subject site. In response to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren, Assistant Planner Zdeba addressed the intent of setbacks and addressed differences between side and front setbacks and the requirements for each. Ms. Wisneski addressed allowances relative to commercial versus residential zones Page 3 of 12 wo fxlari9Ss]:ii:T y.L'l�VWIf[eZdiPufuW-HiPNUTMI" :7MAIW Commissioner Kramer commented on a prior case under similar circumstances at 407 East Balboa Boulevard. Mr. Zdeba noted that the property was considered prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Code and commented on the specific circumstances considered at the time. He further clarified that the modification permit granted under the old Zoning Code to 407 East Balboa Boulevard allowed an addition consistent with what is allowed by right in the new Zoning Code. Commissioner Kramer commented on other physical features of the property. Commissioner Ameri expressed sympathy for the applicant but felt that there are ways to reach the applicant's intent without having to demolish the property. He addressed the Planning Commission's limit to authority in terms of the ability change the Code. He expressed concerns with setting a precedent. Commissioner Myers commented on the need to revise the resolution and continue the matter. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that if the intent of the Commission is to consider a resolution for approval, it could be approved at this time if sufficient information is provided to have staff develop a resolution for approval. The maker of the motion would need to articulate the findings. Commissioner Kramer indicated he cannot support the findings and will vote against the motion. Chair Hillgren stated that he encouraged the redevelopment of the property but cannot support the findings. He noted that the code allows for reasonable expansion of the property but expressed concems that the proposal to eliminate the front setback is inconsistent with the primary goal of the zoning code. He indicated support for the applicant's efforts to improve the property but stressed the need to comply with the goals of the code. Motion made by Commissioner Myers and seconded by Commissioner Brown and failed (2 — 5), to deny adoption of Resolution No. 1918 denying Variance No. VA2013-002 and support issuance of the variance based on the fact that unique circumstances and conditions exist on the property and that strict compliance with the Zoning Code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the applicant and will not constitute special privilege or be inconsistent with zoning and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Facts in support would be that the property has been in existence for seventy-three (73) years. Special circumstances would include that the property was built prior to significant zoning changes, is currently well-maintained and that compliance with the Zoning Code would constitute an economic hardship for the homeowners. AYES: Brown and Myers NOES: Amen, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, and Tucker ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried (5 — 2), to adopt Resolution No. 1918 denying Variance No. VA2013-002. AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, and Tucker NOES: Brown and Myers ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None Page 4 of 12 6.5 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Hormann Variance Appeal — An appeal of the Planning Commission's August 22, 2013, decision to deny Variance No. VA2013-002. The applicant's request is to maintain/remodel an existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property including a two -car garage and attached two -car carport. The existing duplex is nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. The proposed new construction would comply with the Zoning Code's development standards with the exception that additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area. A variance is required.for the proposed project as it would result in a 104 -percent addition. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644-3253 or bzdeba(a)-newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2013-086 Zone: Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Location: 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard Activity No.: VA2013-002 General Plan: Two -Unit Residential (RT) Applicant: Greg and Sharon Hormann EW PU - t Leilani . Brown, MMC, City Clerk °Rona= City of Newport Beach CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On -TOO,, \,k / 7"' 2014, 1 posted 2 Site Notices of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Hormann Variance Appeal (PA2013-086) Locations: 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard Date of City Council Public Hearing: January 28, 2014 .i" 1 htl]V-VCJ-VV2S'L i wtw-vv® F Jvyva cP1 ap suas • ; QD09LS @A83" 4IjLgLD al zasivin ujo:)-Ajane-NkA m i ap uge ajnLPey el g zagday ® a salad a salve} sa}}anbq Mr. & Mrs. Greg Hormann Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 419 E. Balboa Blvd John Loomis Newport Beach, CA 92661 2821 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Central Newport Beach Community Association P.O. Box 884 Newport Beach, CA 92661 Balboa Village BID 400 Main Street Newport Beach, CA 92661 Variance Labels Variance Labels Labels prepared 4/23/13 Labels prepared 4/23/13 PA2013-086 for VA2013-002 PA2013-086 for VA2013-002 417 & 419 E Balboa Blvd 417 & 419 E Balboa Blvd Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. Thirtieth Street Architects Inc CD 1 81 Labels CD 1 ��s bels i 0915 ' W,,a6P3 do-dod asodxa jaded paaj Y ®0915 a;eldwa� �ICjantd ash ® ® W o; ouil 6uole puss ® s s a Ilse e ; I qel ®Ias d 3 048 080 02 048 082 04 048 082 13 City Of Newport Arthur Spector Lucinda Simpson Boswell 3300 Ne Blvd 801 S Rampart Blvd #200 550 N Osborn Ave Ne rt Beach Ca 92663 Las Vegas Nv 89145 West Covina Ca 91790 048 082 14 048 082 15 048 082 16 Taffee Trust We Smiley 2361 Newport LLC Po Box 459 Po Box 790 801 S Rampart Blvd #200 Yorba Linda Ca 92885 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Las Vegas Nv 89145 048 082 17 048 092 08 048 092 11 Michael Oshay 315 E Bay William Dildine 912 Brigham Young Dr 9227 Fox Fire Dr Po Box 4118 Claremont Ca 91711 Highlands Ranch Co 80129 Newport Beach Ca 92661 048 092 27 048 092 28 048 111 12 Jonardi & Sari Handoko Eddie Fischer Eric Van De Zilver 3125 Montana Ln 2020 E Orangethorpe Ave 13951 Carroll Way #e Claremont Ca 91711 Fullerton Ca 92831 Tustin Ca 92780 048 111 13 048 111 14 048 111 26 Gladys Bennett Wayne & Marianne Zippi Thomas Oloughlin 5431 Magnolia Ave 420 E Bay Ave 428 E Bay Ave Riverside Ca 92506 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661 048 111 27 048 111 28 048 113 01 Vandezilver Trust Franklin Coffman Roger Killingsworth 426 E Bay Ave 430 E Bay Ave 4721 Casa Oro Dr Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Yorba Linda Ca 92886 04811302 048 113 03 048 113 04 Antoinette Rando William Boggess Loyal Hengstler 5309 Via Corona St 3251 Ocean Front Walk 419 E Bay Ave Los Angeles Ca 90022 San Diego Ca 92109 Newport Beach Ca 92661 04811401 048 114 02 048 114 03 Deborah Irish Sandi Smith Gary Rorden 240 Nice Ln #210 311 Kensington Rd 344 Colleen PI Newport Beach Ca 92663 East Lansing Mi 48823 Costa Mesa Ca 92627 048 114 04 048 114 05 048 114 06 Beverly Ann Depauw Steven & Michele Stranak Timothy Morgon 13807 Magnolia Blvd 419 Harding St 26572 Saddleback Dr Sherman Oaks Ca 91423 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Mission Viejo Ca 92691 048 114 09 048 114 10 048 114 11 Artunian Trust Fahey Trust Carlito Diaz 53 Shady Ln 1034 Pescador Dr 24421 Saint James Dr Irvine Ca 92603 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Moreno Valley Ca 92553 048 114 12 048 114 15 04811501 S & B Brooks LP J Roger Gorski Tjac LLC 2657 Windmill Pkwy#118 418 E Balboa Blvd 949 University Ave Henderson Nv 89074 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Burbank Ca 91504 048 115 02 048 115 04 048 115 07 Keikhosrow Kavoussi Kay Swoffer Patton 500 East Balboa LLC 4303 James Casey St #a 6254 Parima St 1203 N Bay Front Austin Tx 78745 Long Beach Ca 90803 Newport Beach Ca 92662 048 115 09 048 115 11 048 115 12 Lyle Faith Harpreet Singh Holdings Haleiwa 134 W Lime Ave 510 E Balboa Blvd 1008 E Balboa Blvd Monrovia Ca 91016 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661 048 115 13 048 115 14 048 115 15 Saunders Michael Sand 505-507 Bay LLC 4040 Macarthur Blvd #300 42820 Viola Ct 4601 Coldwater Canyon Ave #201 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Leesburg Va 20176 Studio City Ca 91604 048 115 16 048 121 01 048 121 02 505-507 �BLC Esmaiel Doostmard Gray Trust 460 oldwater Canyon Ave #201 2118 Port Durness PI 407 E Balboa Blvd Studio City Ca 91604 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Newport Beach Ca 92661 048 121 03 048 121 04 048 121 05 Brian Phan Spencer Jackson Henry Joe Schorr 13203 W Palo Verde Dr 411 E Balboa Blvd 19106 Marlia Ct Litchfield Park Az 85340 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Tarzana Ca 91356 048 121 06 048 121 07 r 048 121 09 Anne Harriman Casa Maui Inc Ronald Richard Soto Po Box 3605 2920 E Ricker Way 25435 Gallup Cir Newport Beach Ca 92659 Anaheim Ca 92806 Laguna Hills Ca 92653 048 121 10 048 121 11 048 121 12 Richard Wehrt Hajjar Trust Barbara Luken 1572 La Loma Dr 414 E Oceanfront 4112 Enchanted Cir Santa Ana Ca 92705 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Roseville Ca 95747 048 121 13 048 121 15 048 121 17 Robert Lowell Martin Jr. Richard Dwyer Evelyn Foster 410 E Oceanfront 3320 Wonder View Dr 404 E Oceanfront Newport Beach Ca 92661 Los Angeles Ca 90068 Newport Beach Ca 92661 048 121 18 048 121 19 048 121 20 Mark Lucas James Gucciardo Allen Wah 812 N Kalaheo Ave Po Box 544 1718 Bronzewood Ct Kailua Hi 96734 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Thousand Oaks Ca 91320 048 121 21 048 122 01 04812202 Jane Xenos Vines Trust George Kliorikaitis 423 E Balboa Boulevard A B 303 Brookside Ave 2421 Margaret Dr Newport Beach Ca 92661 Redlands Ca 92373 Newport Beach Ca 92663 048 122 03 048 122 04 04812205 George Kliorikait' Dino & Hope Clarizio Ronald Rose 2421 Mar et Dr 1412 Orlando Dr Po Box 77153 Ne rt Beach Ca 92663 Arcadia Ca 91006 Corona Ca 92877 048 12206 048 122 07 04812208 James Frank Gucciardo Orka LLC Scap III LLC Po Box 544 Po Box 118 Po Box 810490 Newport Beach Ca 92661 San Juan Capistrano Ca 92693 Dallas Tx 75381 048 122 10 048 122 11 048 122 13 Suzan Tai Ward Brien Kosger-Hovaguimian 413 W Manchester Blvd 7130 Eaglefield Dr 502 E Oceanfront Inglewood Ca 90301 Arlington Wa 98223 Newport Beach Ca 92661 048 122 14 048 122 15 048 122 16 Kimm Richardson Hobbs Trust Randy Esposito 413 S Glassell St 35 Balboa Cvs 4887 E La Palma Ave #708 Orange Ca 92866 Newport Beach Ca 92663 Anaheim Ca 92807 04812401 048 125 01 048 320 03 City Of Newport Beach City Of Newport.Beach City Of Newport Beach 3300 New Blvd 3300 Newport Blvd 3300 ; port Blvd Newport - each Ca 92663 Newp Beach Ca 92663 Newport Beach Ca 92663 932 16029 932 160 30 936 520 01 Tillerco LLC John Messerschmitt Gary Ziesche 185 Charter Oak Dr 25621 Rapid Falls Rd 2401 Cliff Dr New Canaan Ct 06840 Laguna Beach Ca 92653 Newport Beach Ca 92663 936 520 02 936 520 03 936 520 04 Fund Lai Roger Stones Richard Ramella 713 W Duarte Rd #g-197 Po Box 9290 207 Sapphire Ave Arcadia Ca 91007 Glendale Ca 91226 Newport Beach Ca 92662 936 520 05 936 520 06 936 520 07 Curt Mainard Robert Singh Ramin Alipour 425 E Bay Ave #5 418 Harding St #6 420 Harding St #7 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661 936 520 08 936 520 34 936 520 35 Jeffrey Arzouman Henry Nguyen Henry yen 427 E Bay Ave #8 52 Lazy Ln 52 z Ln Newport Beach Ca 92661 Kemah Tx 77565 Kemah Tx 77565 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the notice published. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH/COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on September 29, 1961, case A6214, and June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and the State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Saturday; January 18, 2014 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 30, 2014 at Los Angeles, California gnature Jo _