Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Ensign Residence - 3415 Ocean Boulevard - Variance 2003-001 - Modification Permit 2003-004CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 9 April 22, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirez (a)city.newport- beach.ca us SUBJECT: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 APPLICANT NAME: G. Robert Ensign, applicant for Curt W. Ensign, property owner ISSUE: Attached are the minutes from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission hearing regarding the above referenced application. Prepared by: Gregg B. R mirez, Associate Q11anner Attachments: Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director A. Excerpt of minutes from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission hearing ATTACHMENT A EXCERPT OF MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 The three lot use does not support residential use consistent with the other residential use on Balboa Island. • e idea is to go from three to two lots and then have residential lots that will be 'ghtly larger but more consistent with the neighborhood. • This \onlye in either single family or duplex homes on each lot. • Botse development patterns are consistent with the residential devt already on Balboa Island. • This a lower intensity use. • Therly e two property owners, whether there is a duplex or single famnce at decision has not been made yet. However, they are leanrds tw ingle family homes. The are off th alley. Commissioner Tucker noted: • The pure housing is rather inc patible with the area. • Something other than a parkin of is certainly an entitlement, although the parking is nice to have there. Public comment opened. Alan Beek, resident of Balboa Island noted that t conversion is a great idea and more is needed in the City. He asked that this be ap oved. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to recomm d approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -003, 1 oastal Program Amendment No. 2003 -001, Code Amendment No. 2002 -009, New rt Parcel Map No. 2002 -031 (PA2002 -244). Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Selich, Tucker Recused: Kiser Excused: Gifford SUBJECT: Ensign Residence (PA2003 -006) 3415 Ocean Blvd. Request for a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The application also includes a request for a modification permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. Chairperson Kiser noted the additional conditions of approval distributed. 9 INDEX Item No. 6 PA2003 -006 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3. 2003 INDEX Mr. Ramirez noted those additional conditions reflect required Fire and Building Code policies that, considering the scope of the project, should be in written form so everyone can be made aware of these issues. He then made a short slide presentation noting the project site, aerial photo depicting access off the frontage road along with five other homes, and noted a couple of those properties that had variances that either allowed height above top of curb (no access off frontage road) or height above natural grade, as well as views of the property from the beach. Also included in the slide presentation were the plans and artist rendering of the proposed project that were also included as part of the packet. He then noted the 24 foot height limit of the existing grade, the line of existing grade, the site topography, and the line of the finished grade on the plans as well as the slab on grade deck. Also noted was the elevation of the floor of the roof deck as it relates to the curb height, which measured approximately 6 feet below the top of curb height. Commissioner Selich, noting the existing topography of the property, stated it was curious that the house on one side had to get a variance in order to be constructed and the house on the other side was constructed without a variance. Both the houses appear to be at the same height so I suspect that one was in condition like this site where they had to grade a pad out on the bluff, where the house on the other side the pad had already been excavated and were able to construct without a variance. Is this true? Ms. Temple answered she could research that but added that in addition to the natural grade a lot of the issues related to compliance with the 24 foot height limit oftentimes flow out of the actual design of the roof as well. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Ramirez noted that all the homes on that frontage road as depicted in a slide taken from the beach area will have similar roof heights as they all must comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitations. Chairperson Kiser acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. Phil and Lynn Butterfield; a copy of the letter from Zumbrum Law Firm dated April 10 opposed to the project, and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Halfacre in support of the project. Public comment was opened Kurt Ensign, resident and applicant noted the following: • Care was taken in consideration of views and issues related to scale and size with regard to the neighboring properties. • The height does not exceed the top of curb limitation; does not exceed the 24 foot height limit as viewed from the front of the house; compared to the neighbors, the rendering matches the ridge line of the neighboring home and on the other side, it slopes down. We have preserved view corridors on either side of the project. • This is a three story home that does have a split with a basement. The homes on either side are three stories. • A denial of this proposal would be inconsistent with what is built around the 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX subject property. • We are all held to the fact that we can not build out towards the ocean and over 2/3 of our lot on the rear is not buildable. • We only have 25 feet of buildable depth of house once the front yard setback is subtracted and comply with the string line in the back. That is the hardship that necessitates a variance. • The building height on the beach side is why we need the variance. We have been careful to match what the existing homes have on the base of the home. • We are requesting to encroach into the front yard setback but it is entirely below the street grade. The livable space will not be visible to anyone. • We have proposed a basement. We will be subject to the Building Department and the basement will be constructed pursuant to appropriate codes and structural engineering standards and requirements, etc. and all our contractors will provide the essential insurance. • The roof deck is a concern of our neighbor across and above us on the other side of the street. Therefore, I have offered and will be recording a covenant that restricts any portable furnishings that exceed top of curb height not be allowed on the roof deck. It will be recorded and subject to civil litigation. • The variance is more of a technical one as the proposed height is consistent with the neighbors; the size is three stories, the same as the neighbors'; the design complies with the string line along the rear of the home and the variance for the front yard is not visible and is consistent with recent approvals. Chairperson Kiser noted that every variance granted is done so on its own merits and is not considered a precedent. Commissioner Selich, referring to the slides noted his concern of taking away more of the bluff area. Mr. Ensign noted that there is an existing retaining wall on the right side of the house. When that is removed, we will intersect the dirt at that natural grade line. Referring to the slides, he noted the slab at the ground, retaining wall and the natural grade between the homes. The adjacent homes are three stories and do not have basements. Alan Beek, resident of the City noted the following: • The setback is a vital part of the narrow street which gives access to other houses and the project should be conditioned upon the ceiling of these rooms being constructed with sufficient strength to support these heavy vehicles and the setback area being paved to form a continuation of the street. • The maximum height of the house should not be more than the minimum height of the Ocean Blvd., curb that is 91.91 MSL, as proposed it is 92.53 MSL. The loss of half a foot of the view of the ocean is significant. • The encroachment of four feet beyond the string line for the grade level 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX patio on the ocean side should not be granted and the applicant should be made to hold the line. If you hold to the standard and grant no exceptions, everyone has equal treatment and the homes present a smooth front with no exceptions. The proposed findings are slanted for the applicant. The same circumstances and conditions apply to the whole row of homes on the top of the bluff. The proposed project does not comply with the Ocean Blvd. top of curb height limitation; it actually violates the limitation by 0.62 feet. The other properties have been held to the string line criterion and the curb height criterion; to grant even small exceptions for this property does constitute a grant of special privilege. The project as designed is unreasonable. Given the number of bedrooms and the total floor area, this six - bedroom house with 5,627 square feet is more than a 'luxury'. These bedrooms average only 138 square feet - somewhat more like a barracks than a home. The five of them have only two bathrooms and one of those must be accessed through the game room. I ask that you condition the project on not exceeding the string line with the grade level patio, on being lowered 0.62 feet to meet the height -of -curb criterion, and the front setback be made part of the street and supported with enough strength to carry City trash trucks. I strongly recommend that you require more garage spaces for six bedrooms as we all know that bedrooms translate to cars. Let's be realistic. Commissioner Selich noted that the area referenced as the low point of the curb is also the low point of the roof and that roof is substantially below the 92.53, which appears at the other end of the property. Is that correct staff? Ms. Temple answered that the curb adjoining this property at Ocean Boulevard is not at a consistent elevation and in fact slopes from a high to low point. This particular house was designed so that at any static point along the frontage, the building conforms to the limitation of no higher than curb. The City's Zoning Code does not require no higher than the lowest point of curb adjoining the property. but only that it be no higher than the curb at that point. This particular property does conform to that provision. Chairperson Kiser noted that the project will be conditioned so that no part of the structure will be built higher than the curb height. The home is not being built underneath that access road. The excavation below grade into the setback and to the property line will only go up to the ocean side of that access road and no portion of the residence will be underneath the access road. Staff concurred. Continuing, he noted that we will be discussing the lower grade patio. Phil Butterfield, neighbors of the proposed project noted the following: • Concerned that the applicant stays within the restrictions that all the neighbors had to abide by. • Concerned with the excavation that is proposed and wants to be assured that the licensed contractors have insurance and that it will be built 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX according to City guidelines. There is a difference between a retaining wall and actually removing an enormous amount of dirt that is planned. Not knowing the bluff stability, thinks that would be a great concern to the other neighbor as well. Lynn Butterfield, distributed handouts to the Planning Commission and noted: • The size of her newly constructed home and comparisons to the proposed project. • Asked that the project not be given anything more than the neighbors. • Concerned with safety issues of bluff erosion. • Roof deck with no umbrellas is not feasible as it gets very hot. • The granting of this application would be preferential treatment to the applicant. • At Commission inquiry, she stated that other than the excavation issue, she is concerned with the public right of way; exceeding the string line with the deck; and the height in back is taller than other projects. Don Cazarian, 3412 Ocean Boulevard across from the Ensign project noted: • The top deck could have been eliminated. • The project is a nice design. Chairperson Kiser asked if this project could be conditioned to require the recordation of a view easement that would prevent anything being placed on the top deck that would exceed the curb height. Ms. Clauson answered not in that regard. The concept of being involved with reviewing covenants, their effectiveness and what they are in exchange for along with rights would put the City in the position to see what is complied. You could look at putting a condition in to prohibit anything on the roof, although I do not know the practicality of it. Chairperson Kiser noted that since we are talking about a public view and we have the authority to condition this for the public view from the walkway along Ocean Blvd., could we not condition the project? Ms. Clauson answered you could. Ms. Temple added that this is a legitimate concern, however from a practicality standpoint if someone puts out an umbrella for three hours on Saturday afternoon and brought it back in and on Monday there is a complaint, there is nothing we could do about it. If there was a storage shed, that may require building permits. It would not be permitted because it would exceed the height limit. There are a number of things after fact that people do try that require a building permit. I am concerned as an enforcement officer, not an attorney, that implying to the community that by imposing such a condition we could also effectively enforce it. I think it would be very difficult to stand up before the community and say we can impose it and yes we are going to be able to enforce it. 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX Ms. Clauson stated that if the owner puts on their own covenant and there is no consideration for it, the next owner can take it off. There is really no enforcing capability that comes out of that particularly with future owners. Public comment was opened. Mr. Ensign noted that he has prepared the covenant and is going to record it because he gave his word. He added that the house was designed with two string lines in mind, one for the house and one for the deck. In both cases we comply and do not exceed either one. Mr. Ramirez added that per the plans the string lines are complied with. The confusion may lie in the deck that goes beyond the string line is the one that is on the lowest level on grade 4 feet beyond the string line. Mr. Ensign answered that it is not a deck, it is a slab that is on grade. Following a brief discussion he added that he has no intention of protruding beyond the string line on any level. Mr. Ramirez added that according to the plan from the front property line to the back of the furthest most portion of the deck /slab on grade (sheet A2), the lower level floor plan, that dimension as identified on plan is 44 feet. The other decks from the front setback to the farthest most portion dimension is 41 feet. Mr. Ensign noted that these are concept plans and there will be no deck there. If you want to add a condition to preclude any decks from extending beyond the string lines from the adjacent properties, I am fine with that. Chairperson Kiser noted that anything that is approved tonight is based on the plans that are presented with the proper dimensions. Commissioner Selich noted that if this is a slab on grade, it could be landscape as well. Mr. Ensign noted that any railings on the decks will be glass. Rod Jones, 3328 Ocean Boulevard commended the applicant on the design and feels it will be an asset to the neighborhood. He voiced his concern with the amount of excavation that could happen. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the project: • Variance is warranted as the property has a steep slope going down. • There are two homes on either side, one needed a variance and one did not. • The topography of the property makes it difficult to build a reasonable house. 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX The basement is the primary contributor to the extra square footage and any home can dig down and create a basement area as long as they are within the square footage limits. It is a well designed home and stays below the curb height from Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated above. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project as it gives consistency with everybody else. Commissioner Toerge noted his support of the project stating: • This parcel is not unique compared to the properties next door to it. • 1 am disappointed in our aged General Plan and Zoning Codes allow six bedrooms in this house while requiring only two cars of parking that on a frontage street that provides no off - parking. Putting 6 bedrooms and providing two parking spaces can only create problems for the neighbors. • Concerned that the size of the home would start to encroach into the bluff area and change the character of the bluff, however, with the existing retaining wall in place, there will not be a significant difference. • With the retaining wall in place and the amount of grading to be done, hopefully there will not be a tremendous difference. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the project: • The excavation issues are challenging and outside our purview. • The setback encroachment in front is not an issue. • The string line issues have been addressed. Chairperson Kiser noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated and made Motion to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within the staff report with the additional conditions 13, 14 and 15 distributed at the meeting with additional conditions that no portion of the residential structure would exceed the string line from the homes on either side of the project, no portion of a project deck would exceed the string line from the decks of the homes on either side of the project, and the word 'deck' would be deleted from the plans which include the words 'slab on grade' so that no approval of a deck on the slab on grade shown on the plans would be implied. An additional condition that nothing is to be placed on the roof deck that would exceed the height of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. Ms. Clauson noted that the condition may be worded that nothing shall exceed the height of 4 -6 feet on the top deck so that it would be enforceable for any item, such as furniture, plants. Chairperson Kiser stated the condition should read no plantings, structures, 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX furniture or any other objects can exceed the height of the rail of the roof deck as approved by this variance, which is about 6 feet above the level of the deck. Public comment was reopened. Mr. Ensign said he agrees with the additional conditions. Public comment was closed. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Excused: Gifford Additional Business a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council on March 5fh, discussed the staffing levels of the Planning Department as two new p 'tions are requested; the Council endorsed the Vision Statement; and intro ced and passed to second hearing the Landmark Building statute. b) Oral rep t from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developm t Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that the April 23rd meeting will hkve a presentation of the City's traffic model being used for the General Pla pdate. C) Report from Plannin Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - mmissioner Agajanian reported that nominations had been approved to ill out the vacancies; and agreement was reached on the process N how the Planning Commission and City Council will be involved. d) Report from Planning Commission representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meetin . e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner w Id like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wi to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - create a conse calendar mechanism for the Planning Commission meetings. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. \Council ed an updated listing. Following a brief discussion item 4 m 9 is finished, and item 13 is going to be placed on the City Session in two weeks. h) Proj ect status- We have received two applications, St Marks and St Anc and staff has determined both require an environmental impact report. W1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 9 April 22, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirez _city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 APPLICANT NAME: G. Robert Ensign, applicant for Curt W. Ensign, property owner ISSUE: Should the City Council approve a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a Modification Permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10- foot front yard setback? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval contained within the attached Planning Commission Resolution. DISCUSSION: On April 3, 2003 the Planning Commission approved the applications permitting a single family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and encroach up to 10 -feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The project was approved as requested by the applicant with the exception of a slab on grade deck which was not permitted to project beyond a stringline established between the two adjacent residences (Condition No. 16). During the course of the hearing, the Commission considered the height of the structure above the existing grade and if the sloping topography of the property justified approval. The Commission also considered the overall height of the structure and how it would relate to neighboring properties located on the bluff and whether the subterranean front setback encroachments would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Ensign Residence April 22, 2003 Page 2 The Commission concluded that approval of the applications was warranted based on the sloping topography creating a narrow building pad of the property, the project's compliance with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit and the fact that the front yard encroachments are completely subterranean. Additionally, the proposed structure is comparable to the abutting properties in terms of height and visible mass. Additional Information The subject property is one of six homes that take access off the small Ocean Boulevard frontage road. Of these six, one located at 3425 Ocean Boulevard (adjacent to the subject property) received approval of two variances to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. Variance No. 1063 (A) permitted a roof mid -point height of 37 feet above existing grade at the highest point. The top of ridge is approximately 4 feet higher but appears to comply with the 29 -foot ridge height limit above natural grade based on location higher up the slope. Variance No. 1153 permitted two second floor decks on the bluff facing side to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and have a maximum height of 29 feet. The structure located on the other side of the subject property, 3401 Ocean Boulevard, appears to have been constructed in compliance with the height regulations based on a review of Building Department records. This was achieved by using pitched roofs, which can be constructed to 29 -feet above existing grade so long as the mid - points of the roofs do not exceed 24 feet, and by locating the ridge peaks farther up the slope. However, the height of the structure as measured from finished floor to top of ridge as a result of construction is approximately 34 feet. The height of the proposed structure from finished floor is approximately 34 feet above natural grade and approximately 40 feet above finished /proposed grade at the highest point towards the southeasterly side of the property. The structure has more floor area than the other homes on the bluff due to the construction of a basement level and subterranean portions of other levels. The Commission received testimony from a neighboring property owner who expressed concerns regarding the stability of the property and adjoining properties due to the excavation. The Commission noted that the project will require extensive geotechnical and engineering studies that will be reviewed by the Building Department during plan check. Additionally, the contractors, engineers and other design professionals associated with the project are required to have liability insurance should damage to adjacent properties occur. Environmental Review The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential. zone) since the proposed structure will replace an existing structure in approximately the same footprint. Ensign Residence April 22, 2003 Page 3 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: The Council has the following options: 1. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by reducing the height of the structure and setback encroachments. 2. Refer the applications back to the Planning Commission with instructions. 3 Deny the application. Prepared by: Gregg B. kamirez, Associate fanner Attachments: Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, Pla ning Director A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 (including findings and conditions of approval) B. Excerpt of draft Planning Commission minutes from the April 3, 2003 hearing C. Planning Commission Staff Report, April 3, 2003 D. Additional Correspondence ATTACHMENT A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1594 RESOLUTION NO. 1594 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3415 OCEAN BOULEVARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Curt W. Ensign with respect to property located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 6, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a 6,100 square foot residence that exceeds the 24 -foot height limit and, encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. Both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designates the site as Single Family Detached residential. Section 2. A public hearing was held on April 3, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district. The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code without additional bluff alteration. The proposed project complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation. b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff that General Plan Policy D encourages preservation. Granting the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff beyond the footprint of the existing development. c) That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Paae 2 of 5 The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Additionally, the proposed floor area is well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code. d) The granting of the requested variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. Additionally, granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation and is within the "stringline" of the adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: 1) Due to the wide Ocean Boulevard right -of -way, the proposed below grade encroachments will be approximately 57 feet from the existing sidewalk. The above grade portion of the structure maintains the required 10 -foot setback and is located approximately 67 feet from the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence does not exceed the adjacent top of curb height. 2) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting modification and variance applications. This procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Paae 3 of 5 f) The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission approves Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", the plans dated March 11, 2003, Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL 2003. My M Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary AYES: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Tucker ABSENT: Gifford NOES: None I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Paoe 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations dated March 11, 2003 with the exception of any revisions required by the following conditions. 2. Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code regulations. 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the final design of the driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire and Building Code. 7. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of the new residence. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specified by section 20.65.070 of the Zoning Code 10. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a drainage plan shall be prepared. Site drainage shall be directed to the existing drain line or directed to Ocean Boulevard unless otherwise approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Paae 5 of 5 11. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed the adjacent Ocean Boulevard top of curb height as shown on the approved set of plans. 13. As part of the submittal requirements for grading and building permits, an extensive geotechnical investigation and geotechnical report shall be prepared. Included in the recommendations shall be a shoring plan designed to protect the adjacent properties and right of way from damage resulting from the temporary removal of lateral support. 14. During excavation and construction, vehicular access to adjacent properties shall be maintained at all times. 15. Automatic fire extinguishing system (sprinklers) shall be installed in all occupancies when the total floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet. 16. No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or building stringline as established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. This regulation includes slab on grade decks and patios, which may not exceed the deck stringline 17. Fixed or portable objects including, but not limited to, umbrellas, space heaters, cabinets, furniture, and plantings placed on the roof deck may not exceed the height of the 6 -foot roof deck privacy wall facing Ocean Boulevard. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised set of drawings to the Planning Department for inclusion in the Variance file showing the deletion of the word 'Deck" from the plans as shown on Sheet A -2, Lower Level Floor Plan. ATTACHMENT B EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 3, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING l� The final Planning Commission minutes for this item will be distributed to the City Council in the supplemental agenda packet on Friday, April 18, 2003. lv J� ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 1°1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 6 April 3, 2003 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirez(aicity.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 Request for a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The application also includes a request for a modification permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. (PA2003 -006) APPLICANT NAME: G. Robert Ensign, applicant for Curt W. Ensign, property owner ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission approve a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a Modification Permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10- foot front yard setback? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within this staff report and attached Draft Planning Commission Resolution. 0�� Ensign Residence Apri! 3, 2003 Page 2 Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) Current Development: c I Single Family Residences To the east: Single Family Residences To the south: e C I To the west: Corona Del Mar State Beach _y� e, ( L 5 Ib Subject Property' I `i J I� 0 200 400 Fee: VICINITY MATS 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) Current Development: Single - Family Residence To the north: Single Family Residences To the east: Single Family Residences To the south: Sin le Family Residences I To the west: Corona Del Mar State Beach Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Background: The subject property was developed with a two level single - family residence and attached garage in 1956. The dwelling is approximately 10 feet in height at the front (Ocean Blvd.) side, 20 feet high on the bluff side and conforms to all current development regulations. Site Overview: The subject property is a coastal bluff that slopes away from Ocean Boulevard down to the unimproved portion of Breakers Drive and Corona Del Mar State Beach. The upper third of the site is developed with the existing residence. Access to the property is off Ocean Boulevard via a narrow access road located within the Ocean Boulevard right -of- way. An existing path /stairway winds down the coastal bluff to the beach. The remaining portion of the bluff is heavily landscaped. The Subject property is zoned R -1 and has the following development regulations: Lot Size: 7,800 square feet (65 x 120) Required Setbacks: Front: 10 feet Sides: 4 feet Rear: 10 feet Buildable Area: 5,700 square feet (57 x 100) Maximum Floor Area: 8,550 square feet (5,700 x 1.5) Height Limit: 24' flat roof /mid -point (29' ridge) and no portion of structure may exceed height of curb at Ocean Boulevard Proiect Overview: The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing single - family dwelling and the construction of a new four - level, single family dwelling with an attached two -car garage and roof deck. The proposed project has the following characteristics: Proposed Square Footage Tabulation: Upper Level: 1,260 square feet Mid - Level: 877 square feet Lower Level: 1,887 square feet Mf Basement Level: 1,603 square feet Garage (at Mid - Level): 473 square feet Total: 6,100 square feet Roof deck: 483 square feet Maximum floor area to buildable area ratio: 1.5 Proposed floor area to buildable area ratio: 1.07 Proposed height above existing grade (front): 24 feet Proposed height above existing grade (bluff side): 34 feet Proposed height above finished grade (bluff side): 40 feet Analysis: Public Views Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 4 The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program advocate the preservation of public views. In this particular case, public view preservation along Ocean Boulevard is specifically addressed within the Zoning Code. The Code limits the height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the height of the top of the adjacent Ocean Boulevard curb. In this case, the adjacent top -of -curb height ranges from 91.91 mean sea level to (MSL) to 93.01 MSL. The height of the proposed structure complies with this height limitation. Except for an on grade deck at the "Lower Level ", the new construction will generally be located within the same footprint of the existing development. As noted on the site plan, the proposed structure adheres to both a building and deck "stringline ". The "stringline" is an imaginary line drawn between the two adjacent residences used as an analytical tool for comparison and analysis of the encroachment of structures on the coastal bluff. As a result of using the "stringline ", the proposed residence is setback approximately 75 -feet from the rear property line, well away from the 10 -foot minimum requirement. Additionally, since the proposed residence does not project beyond the "stringline" of the adjacent residences, public views from Inspiration Point will not be affected. Coastal Bluff Preservation Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies state that it is the City's policy to ensure that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The majority of the proposed structure is located within the existing disturbed area. However, an exterior on grade deck at the "Lower Level" will be constructed approximately 4 -feet beyond the existing footprint. The proposed finished floor elevation of the lower level on grade deck on the bluff side is 52.65 MSL, approximately 6 -feet lower than the existing deck. However, as noted in the a3 Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 5 "Public View" discussion, the proposed residence (including the deck on grade) will maintain an approximate 75 -foot rear yard setback leaving approximately two- thirds of the coastal bluff unaltered by this project. Due to the location of the proposed structure and minimal bluff alteration beyond the footprint of the existing development, staff believes that the project can be found consistent with the policies that require coastal bluff alteration be kept to a minimum. Height Limit Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance to exceed the required 24 -foot height limit for portions of the proposed structure. The Zoning Code defines the height of a structure as the vertical distance between the highest point of a structure and the grade directly below. As mentioned in the project description, the proposed structure is approximately 34 -feet above the existing grade at the highest point on the bluff side. The overall height from the proposed finished grade will be approximately 40 -feet on the bluff side. In addition to the standard above grade height regulation, the Zoning Code limits the height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the adjacent top of curb height. In this particular case, the top of curb height ranges from 91.91 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 93.01 MSL which, coincidentally, is approximately 24 -feet above existing grade at the front to the subject property. The proposed project has been designed to have a maximum height of 92.53 MSL to comply with the top of curb height regulation. Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff. The proposed project does however, comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. Granting the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar �A Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 6 floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff beyond the footprint of the existing development. However, if strict application of the height limit were implemented, the roof deck and portions of the kitchen, dining room, and vaulted ceiling over the living room would be eliminated 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Additionally, the proposed floor area is well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code, and therefore, staff believes this finding can be made. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. Additionally, granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation and is within the "stringline" of the adjacent properties. Therefore, staff believes the proposed project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. Based on the above findings, staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in this case due to the sloping topography, the preservation of public views and the preservation of a significant portion of the natural coastal bluff. P Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 7 Modification of Front Yard Setback In conjunction with the variance request, the applicant requests approval of a Modification Permit to allow portion of the proposed structure to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The proposed setbacks are: Upper Level: 10 feet Mid Level: 0 feet Lower Level: 0 feet Basement Level: 0 feet Section 20.93.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that in order to grant relief through a modification permit, the Planning Commission must find that the "establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. " The basic intent of front yard setbacks is to provide adequate separation between structures on private property and the public right -of -way and to provide a consistent look from the street. In this particular case, the front property line is located approximately 57 feet from the existing Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. The right -of -way between the sidewalk and property in question consists of a steep slope and access road for the properties located along the bluff. The proposed encroachments are below existing and proposed finished grade and taking in to account the 57 -foot linear separation of the structure from the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk, staff believes the proposed encroachments are reasonable requests. Additionally, these encroachments will allow additional construction on the site without substantial alteration to the coastal bluff on the seaward side of the subject property. Environmental Review: The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone) since the proposed structure will replace an existing structure in approximately the same footprint. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this a`° Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 8 hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: If the Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for the Variance or Modification Permit request, staff suggests that the Commission either direct the applicant to reduce the height or front yard encroachments to an acceptable level and continue the item, if desired, or deny the application. Findings for denial have been prepared and are included as Attachment No. 2. Conclusion: Staff believes the findings for approval of the Variance and Modification Permit requests can be made and that the design of the structure is reasonable given the topography and location of the subject property. The project, as designed, will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling that meets their needs while limiting encroachment down and alteration of the coastal bluff. Additionally, the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limit. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no comments regarding this application. Prepared by: Gregg BAUmirez, Associate anner Attachments: Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director A. Resolution No ; findings and conditions of approval B. Findings for Denial C. Applicant Letter of Justification D. Project Plans (Includes Topographic Survey) r�l ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 2003 - , FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL aX THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK, a� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF" NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3415 OCEAN BOULEVARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Curt W. Ensign with respect to property located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 6, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a 6,100 square foot residence that exceeds the 24 -foot height limit and, encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. Both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designates the site as Single Family Detached residential. Section 2. A public hearing was held on April 3, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district. The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code without additional bluff alteration. The proposed project complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation. b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff that General Plan Policy D encourages preservation. Granting the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff beyond the footprint of the existing development. c) That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 5 The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Additionally, the proposed floor area is well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code. d) The granting of the requested variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. Additionally, granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation and is within the "stringline" of the adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: 1) Due to the wide Ocean Boulevard right -of -way, the proposed below grade encroachments will be approximately 57 feet from the existing sidewalk. The above grade portion of the structure maintains the required 10 -foot setback and is located approximately 67 feet from the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence does not exceed the adjacent top of curb height. 2) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting modification and variance applications. This procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 5 f) The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the. requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission approves Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", the plans dated March 11, 2003. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL 2003. My go Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: �J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations dated March 11, 2003 with the exception of any revisions required by the following conditions. 2. Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code regulations. 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the final design of the driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire and Building Code. 7. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of the new residence. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specified by section 20.65.070 of the Zoning Code 10. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a drainage plan shall be prepared. Site drainage shall be directed to the existing drain line or directed to Ocean Boulevard unless otherwise approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 55 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 5 11. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed the adjacent Ocean Boulevard top of curb height as shown on the approved set of plans. THIS PACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 35 x ATTACHMENT B FINDINGS FOR DENIAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. a� Findings for Denial Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) 1. The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed the 24128 -foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would be considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to surrounding properties because: a) The applicant has not demonstrated that a single - family residence cannot be designed to fully comply with applicable height limits. The applicant can design a smaller residence and comply with applicable height limits. 2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the building slab footprint envelope beyond the existing altered area with the proposed lower level on -grade deck. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration of natural landforms. 3. The granting of the reduction in the required front yard setback will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The reduced setback of the residence locates structures and uses closer to the sidewalk. Potential future use of the expanded Ocean Boulevard right -of -way would be negatively affected due to the reduced setback. b) The reduced setback places the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right -of -way due to the extensive excavation proposed. This is a potential liability for the city. c) The reduction of the front yard setback will be viewed by property owners and developers as establishing a precedent to support similar relief without similar site constraints. J� THIS PACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.. ATTACHMENT C APPLICANT'S LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. ' 3 4 15 OCEAN BOULEVARD Supplement to Sheet 8 of AppLation 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property? The property is located on a bltff. The lot is 65 feet wide and 120 feet deep. There is more than 60 vertical feet of fall from the front of the lot to the back of the lot. The steep slope makes it virtually impossible to comply with the height limit on the ocean side of the home. 2. Why is this variance necessary? Homes built along this street are subject to a very strict "string line "setback pursuant to the Coastal Act to preserve views for adjacent residences and the public. Compliance with that "string line" limits the width on one side of the house to slightly more than 20 feet. Homes on that bluff have historically been approved and constructed to be three stories above grade in order to provide reasonable living area and comply with the "string line " setback. 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? The height of the proposed home when viewed from the front is less than the 2=l foot height limit requirement. Only the rear of the home exceeds the height limit due to the downward slope of the property. The variance on height will be in keeping with the other homes along the bluff on Ocean Boulevard. They have been allowed to use the top of curb elevation of Ocean Bouvlevard as the criteria for the building height limit, for which this application complies. A �3- �J 3415 Ocean Blvd. ur, aS'S.1y Qll '`. Az^._ .'.e CrOiec: ccnSisis of the eerncliticn cf :h-3 �..isarg reshe, ^,C= ar.e c"e ccns;ruc`icn o: ieYJ esidence located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. -e Drcccsed new resident--, which Shares a bluff aicng vccan �Ecuievard :vith ,vek,e cnei ".c': .,.as :.e =_r cesigned to respect the Same "Sinn,-, ine" and height limits that have goverhed ih_ aclao --nt homes. The contemporary design. of ;h_ proposed home provides an arc:-ed rcofiine that keeps the majority Of the ridgeiine well below the :CO n-f c-Ir:: ` ;imic ana ,preser /eS >Cme vie,,,, Of the beach iron the street above. The �-,Ome S essentially a three -story home wit` a basement. There is a split down he middle causing the OorS on the west side of the home to ee several reef higner than the floors on the east site of ;re hnome. This split was necessary to enable she living room, dining room and :dtchen /nook to ail be gC ^netted and still provide a 2 -Car garage m :he street leve,. The front door and enmlwav Is alSed with access occurring aoivjJ a ?erT:od iardS-ape area. When vlevved ircm i'le z eet, il"c home akes on the Character Of a single- szor �-n the east side with the kitchen locoed BCcVe t..= garage on the west side of the home. Tine cedrecros occupy f.;.e Icwer floors. The limits of ?ha ,sting line" allow very little depth to the home. T a rropcsec design utilizes a per ion of `e irgn. yard setback below street grade r• order `.o allow for propel :lg'dr ^Ion ucS Cn. This !ivzbie area :hat is within the front yard setbao;t is Ge:C'N to eXls'Llhg street grade, within Cie legal .lot anc invisible to the neighborhood. It is our hope chat the City will 311Ow this variance in light that it has no impact to the neighborhood and great!y :mprolves the livable area of the home. V F I A_ aS'S.1y Qll '`. Az^._ .'.e CrOiec: ccnSisis of the eerncliticn cf :h-3 �..isarg reshe, ^,C= ar.e c"e ccns;ruc`icn o: ieYJ esidence located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. -e Drcccsed new resident--, which Shares a bluff aicng vccan �Ecuievard :vith ,vek,e cnei ".c': .,.as :.e =_r cesigned to respect the Same "Sinn,-, ine" and height limits that have goverhed ih_ aclao --nt homes. The contemporary design. of ;h_ proposed home provides an arc:-ed rcofiine that keeps the majority Of the ridgeiine well below the :CO n-f c-Ir:: ` ;imic ana ,preser /eS >Cme vie,,,, Of the beach iron the street above. The �-,Ome S essentially a three -story home wit` a basement. There is a split down he middle causing the OorS on the west side of the home to ee several reef higner than the floors on the east site of ;re hnome. This split was necessary to enable she living room, dining room and :dtchen /nook to ail be gC ^netted and still provide a 2 -Car garage m :he street leve,. The front door and enmlwav Is alSed with access occurring aoivjJ a ?erT:od iardS-ape area. When vlevved ircm i'le z eet, il"c home akes on the Character Of a single- szor �-n the east side with the kitchen locoed BCcVe t..= garage on the west side of the home. Tine cedrecros occupy f.;.e Icwer floors. The limits of ?ha ,sting line" allow very little depth to the home. T a rropcsec design utilizes a per ion of `e irgn. yard setback below street grade r• order `.o allow for propel :lg'dr ^Ion ucS Cn. This !ivzbie area :hat is within the front yard setbao;t is Ge:C'N to eXls'Llhg street grade, within Cie legal .lot anc invisible to the neighborhood. It is our hope chat the City will 311Ow this variance in light that it has no impact to the neighborhood and great!y :mprolves the livable area of the home. ATTACHMENT D PROJECT PLANS AA THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Ti[ . . . . . . . . . . y ���� � � \ { / � � f- I A\1 { / � � f- I . . ............ 1. 1 11 -1 1T IV p Thr -71 -7 1 -\I,,\ T-Tf 111-1 T': w I ri IL F:• 1 all lu -1 I�Tf I v is X 0 LLJ -dii rK tl pY ya- I Npp all- -dii tl pY ya- I Npp all- uuanatauuua[ aunnnannna -�. +�' ii. *0.Z, + `,c'•F � � av��,- JS+{) "Yt'iJn • .�C?de,1Tg a r• 1' 't .. ���Irl i'� 7 ' n 1•lI ; "'•` 1 I � ,�,1�I11y�l��,l�ll7�,r111; IIIII �^ �: a• :. ,:..� "1!il�llr�lli`641I I; - "�z r•3. �� pp _ r1 i Y 4 J _ 1` t 5 pr r uuanatauuua[ aunnnannna THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. ATTACHMENT D ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE �L ;Vla vamlpu � 4 -t -zo03 3401 OCEAN BLVD. CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 949 -675 -7482 PHONE 949 - 675.4666 FAX To: Planning Conunissioner City of Newport Beach Subject: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Blvd. CDM Variance No. 2003 -001 Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 Public Hearing April 3, 2003 @ 6:30PM We strongly oppose the project as it is currently designed. There is no justification in the findings that warrants issuance of this variance or modification to Mr. Ensign. We feel doing so would set an adverse precedent for future applicants who ultimately would want to push the building envelope even further. The height and width of construction in our area has been dictated and strictly adhered to for nearly 50 years as indicated by the six homes presently residing on our bluff. See photo. Our properties in this particular area have always been more restricted due to the fact that we all abut CDM State Beach and must preserve the bluff and views for the public and surrounding neighbors. This is further substantiated by the new forthcoming NPB General Plan/Local Coastal Plan update. We are not necessarily happy about these restrictions but we were all made aware of them when we purchased our homes on this section of the bluff. Why does Mr, Ensign feel he should be granted special building privileges given that the other five surrounding homcow-ncrs have all had similar building limitations and have built their homes accordingly? Mr. Ensign like the rest of us can design a livable home that will meet his needs and still conform to the existing building restrictions, without feeling deprived of his private property rights. However, if lie needs more living space and insists on digging out three subterranean floors adjacent to our home we would expect him to indemnify us (backed by insurance) prior to the start of his construction. This is an absolute must to ensure our safety and peace of mind in that the stability of our home and its structure would be sate from harm during his unprecedented excavation. Mr. Ensign's project is attractive and would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood if he could pull in and stale back to conform to the existing homes around him. Respect *.'ully. Philjp.. Lytutc Butterfield '0401 Ocean Blvd, Corona del ibler. CA 92025 53 THE ZUMBRUN LAW FIRM a Prgfesrtona[ Corfwratitm April 1, 2003 `4r. Steven Kiser Chainnun, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 240 Nc-,vport Center Driv ; Suitc 210 Nc••vport B <ach. CA 92660 Dcnr Mfr. Kiser: Re: Lnsign Residence. 3411 Occart Uoulcvard: Agenda I= No. 6 for April 3. 2003; Variance. No. 2003 -001 ind kloclification Permit No. 2003 -004 4•a•aoa3 This is to advise you th;u I ha:cc been rcraincd by Mr. and Mfrs. Philip Butterfield to represent tltcln conccrrirg the above matter. T'hc Buttcrficlds arc next door nci;hbors (3.401 Ocean Boule,,ard) to the north of Mr. and Mrs. Curt Ensign. Tac Butteriields oppose the, Fnsigns, request tier a variance to allow portions of their new single- Gamily residence to cxeced the 214 -foot hcieht limit. 'ncc Butterficlds also strongly oppose the Ensigns' request for a modification perinit to allow subterranean portions of three floors of their new residence to encroach into the required 10 -Coot front yard setback. The Buttcrfields object to the appro�,ai of the above items based in part on the following CO1n111ent". Variance to L•xcee•! the 24 -Foot Height Limit No shoxvimg has been muds that special circumstances are applicable to the Ensign property vhich justify the sppracal oi' a variance. The P.amirez Staf'i Report regardil:; this matter mentions that the subjc,t property has a sloping topography. The Staff RCPCTt does not discuss what makes the Ensign property specifically unique compared to its neighboring properties which would justify disparate treatment bct%vicen neighboring properties. Other property owners within th< subjcet neighborhood also have sloping topography; however, compliancy with the 24 -foot height limit has previously been enforced. Additionally, 41t110U,11 the Staff Report concludes that "the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dtvellin` of similar floor area whcn compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels," no showing has bfen presented to the Planning Commission as to 3800 w'an: \ccnuc Suite 101 ° Samunento, G\ 95421 Tel 916,486-5900 Fax 916486-5959 }� Mr. Steven Kiser. Chairman April 1. 2003 ' r A; Y6. what similar size parcel the Ensigns' property is being compared. At best. the Staff Report is conCiu.sory a!ld not supported by sufficient evidence. As aptly stated in the Findings for Dcnial. "'The applicant leas not demonstrated that a single - family residctiee cannot be designed to fully comply Atith the applicable lie�ot hmits. R,:2ucst to F.Li roncii the PRcLLyiired 10•Fgot Front Yard Setback No provisions havc bc<:a m:lcic to establish that the implementation of the Ensign project will ninintain the hcaich, safety, peace, comfort and general wclfarc of persons residing or working in ill;: ii&JmbUdlood. Section 20.93.0 40 of the \cwport Beach %lunicipal Code requires the finding of the above factors and i:ccordingly provides a st:mdard of care by which V'cwport Beach ai:d tlic Ensigns have a duty to abide. It is reasonably for seeable that the extensive excavation on slopin; topography being proposed by the Eusiens nine cause dctri! lent or injure to neighboring properties and to the general welfare of \Nmport Beach. As cited in the Findimgs for Denial. the extensive excavation may compromise the lalcrnl support to the public right- of -way. As the neighboring property owners, the Brtt'.crikIds arc lecitimatcly corccract' thac sunport of their properly may be Compromised as well. Rathcr thmi keeping their proposcd %te115ive excavation" to a minimum. the Ensigns now seek to increase ilic cxcavaticn and encroach upon the required 10 -foot from yard se!huck. The Buitcrfields strongly oppt:se the Cnsigm' proposed "extensive excavation project. If such 1 pi'oJCC[ \Core perin ro �o fo;war', Scction 20.93.040 rcqulres that safe-y. comlbrt, and ge;.erll lvclfarc must Lc provided for. The Biatcrfieids request that the Plalini -12 Commission cor.diticn any :approval of the Ensigns; "extensive cecavation" with tl:e re- -%uircnicnt that siilliClcnt insuraliCC covCragc be obtained to hold Newport Bcac', 1'�Irinless Ind to cote- -."a Ilion' [9 the Btim:rfields' property rmillim, from the E:isi -2ns pro CCt, It is respatfullc recom,:wnccd that the subject Agenda Item ``o. 6 for .April 3,. 2003 be denied as sefticie:.e e:'iticncc nad findings have not been in:-.dc to justify a variance or cf:cl'oachlilent of unifovirly cnforcCd standards. in the alternative, the Buttcr ields 5tron61v pctinoli that sufflcielit ❑isuriincT eover'x_e b'.': obtained prior to perm:tnne the Pnsivns' ex-LcilshvC cxeavatlOn. Sincerely, W)NALD iV ZUN1UR'C`r a, ,Aitorncv for Mr, and Ivtrs. Fink❑ Bu:!cr!ietd 6!� •C., �K: per, -: i � a � . .�. v } NFy. • J� 1 Al T, .f. r� 7.1.E S• ',s *: [ t,l; `!.:, _, � + +� t T � I ri j I rye { .-.o . -n. : if ,.� e - `, {.,'� '. ,r. �, a• n e + J �1 t ! ?• ,'V'I}. :r.�,i i— - - .` f.. i 1x,;. s i.r..sv i + [ I I Vii' _ F _ .., ,• �, a i