Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2040 - MODIFICATION PERMIT- 75% ADDITION TO NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE - 2912 Broad St RESOLUTION NO. 2040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2016-016 FOR AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 68 PERCENT TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE'-UNIT RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2912 BROAD STREET (PA2016-180) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Anders Lasater Architects, with respect to property located at 2912 Broad Street, and legally described as Lot 2 of Block 22, requesting approval of a modification permit. 2. The applicant proposes a modification permit to allow an addition of approximately 68 percent to an existing single-unit residence that is nonconforming due to setbacks. The Zoning Code limits residential additions to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area of the nonconforming structure within any ten (10) year period with a modification permit. The eastern side of the nonconforming residential structure provides a side yard setback of approximately 2 feet 10 inches, where a 4-foot side yard setback is required. 3. The subject property is located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on December 8, 2016 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of. Regulations (Section 15301, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities)of the Guidelines for CEQA. 2. This exemption includes additions up to 10,000 square feet where public services and utilities are available and the area is not considered environmentally sensitive. The proposed project is an addition of 1,116 square feet to an existing single-family residence in a developed neighborhood and is not within an environmentally sensitive area. i Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 2 of 10 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with NBMC Subsection 20.52.050(E) (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The addition would increase the dwelling size by 1,116 square feet to allow for a new conforming two-car garage, master bedroom suite, and kitchen expansion on the first floor. The proposed areas of addition will comply with all applicable development standards, including height, setbacks, and floor area. The proposed area of addition will not encroach into any required setbacks and will not intensify the existing nonconforming elements of the structure. 2. The existing detached garage is nonconforming due to the full encroachment into the required 5-foot rear and 4-foot side setbacks, as well as having substandard interior width and depth. As currently configured, the garage provides substandard interior dimensions of 15 feet 6 inches wide by 17 feet 6 inches deep, where the Zoning Code requires 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep for a two-car garage. The new garage will be compliant to the setback standards and will provide an interior clearance of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. 3. The proposed addition will increase the total floor area of the property, including the garage, to 2,860 square feet, which is significantly below the maximum allowable floor area of 7,560 square feet. 4. Broad Street consists of single-story and two-story single-unit residences. The proposed project does not increase the maximum height of the existing residence, which is approximately 20 feet from established grade. The residence is well below the maximum 29-foot height limit for the Zoning District and is consistent with the design and height of other properties in the neighborhood. 5. The existing configuration of the property allows for vehicular access exclusively from Broad Street, while the surrounding neighborhood provides vehicular access exclusively from the alley, consistent with City policy. The subject property is the only lot on Broad Street, between San Bernardino Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue, to have a curb cut on Broad Street. The granting of a modification would allow for a new garage with alley access and result in the removal of the existing driveway approach on Broad Street, to be consistent with the pattern of development for the neighborhood. 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 3 of 10 6. The existing development on the property is a single-unit dwelling with a detached garage and no change to the density would result from the proposed addition. Finding: B. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s) of the property and/or structure, and/or characteristics of the use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The existing residence was constructed in 1936 and is representative of the traditional development in Newport Heights in that period. The residence resembles an early California farmhouse cottage and features horizontal ship lap siding that surrounds the entire exterior, shingled details at the gable end roof vents, and traditional braces and brackets supporting the roof fascia. The applicant is proposing to retain the traditional character of the dwelling while constructing a reasonable addition to improve the livability of the home. The proposed project provides the applicant with a new conforming two-car garage, master bedroom suite, and kitchen expansion. 2. The encroaching wall, if relocated, would structurally impact the entire structure and would require a completely new roof structure, lateral resistance system, and foundation. This would ultimately result in the complete demolition of the existing structure, eliminating the historical component of the structure, and increasing the scope of work for the proposed project. Finding: C. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A modification permit is necessary to provide conforming parking in the form of a two-car garage, and to construct a reasonable addition that would bring parity between the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood. Currently, there is no conforming garage parking on-site and vehicular access to the property is taken exclusively off of Broad Street. The proposed garage will provide access from the adjacent alley. 2. The purpose and intent of the nonconforming code provision is to encourage nonconforming structures to become more conforming over time and to abate those uses that may adversely affect the general welfare of persons and property. Currently, approximately 8 percent of the lot's total setback area is encroached upon by nonconforming structures. The demolition of the nonconforming garage will reduce the total area of encroachment into the lot's setback area to 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 4 of 10 approximately 1 percent. The small area of encroachment that remains will maintain adequate separation for light and air, as well as preserve the traditional component of the house. 3. The nonconforming structure has an encroachment of approximately 1-foot 2- inches into the required 4-foot side yard setback. Due to structural reasons, the wall that encroaches into the setback cannot be relocated without demolishing the entire structure. This will result in a significant increase in the scope of work in order to relocate the wall a minimal distance. 4. Approval of the Modification Permit would allow the applicant to use the structure in its original condition, which was constructed in 1936 and was last expanded in 1957. The traditional cottage design of the house is complementary to the neighborhood and is compatible with the design of the surrounding houses. Finding: D. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. An alternative to the Modification Permit is to bring the nonconforming structure into compliance with the current Zoning Code setback requirements. However, the demolition and relocation of the encroaching wall would cause the need to completely demolish the existing structure due to the structural integrity of the structure. This would eliminate the ability to retain the traditional component of the residence and greatly increase the scope and cost of the project. 2. The applicant may reduce the addition to the residence to not exceed 50 percent of the existing floor area of the structure in order to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Given the intent of the project is to provide a conforming two-car garage, new dining room, and new master bedroom suite, a redesign to reduce the size of the addition will significantly impact the objectives of the project and would not provide similar benefits to the applicant. Finding: E. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 5 of 10 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed areas of addition would maintain all required setback standards and will provide adequate protection for light, air, and privacy. The addition will not preclude access to the dwelling and will be consistent in scale with other dwellings in the neighborhood. The proposed areas of addition will not intensify the existing nonconforming elements of the structure. 2. The existing nonconforming residence, built in 1936, has not proven to be detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City. The side setback to the west will comply with the required 4-foot setback, which also maintains a 36-inch wide passageway for emergency egress through the property. 3. The proposed addition will result in a floor area total that is less than the maximum allowed by Zoning Code. 4. The approval of this Modification Permit is conditioned as such that the applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits in accordance with the Building Code and other applicable Codes. In accordance with NBMC Subsection 20.38.040(G)(1) (Nonconforming Structures), expansion of residential structures may be permitted up to a maximum of seventy-five (75) percent with a modification permit approved by the Planning Commission in compliance with NBMC Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and when the following additional findings can be made: Finding: A. The existing development is a legal nonconforming structure. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The existing development was constructed in 1936, prior to the current zoning standards that apply to the lot. Finding: B. The architectural design and materials of the existing nonconforming structure and proposed addition(s) are consistent with Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The existing nonconforming residence is built with materials and architectural features that retain the traditional design of the Newport Heights neighborhood and is compatible with the surrounding development. 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 6 of 10 2. The existing residence resembles an early California farmhouse cottage and features horizontal ship lap siding that surrounds the entire exterior, shingled details at the gable end roof vents, and traditional braces and brackets supporting the roof fascia. 3. The existing residence is designed with multiple window openings and variations in the wall plane, creating a visually aesthetic home that avoids long, unarticulated exterior walls. 4. The proposed design utilizes architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places, including the front facade and the alley. The proposed garage in the rear is designed to replicate the original barn-style garage, keeping the farmhouse cottage style consistent throughout the residence. 5. The proposed project does not include a third floor and exceeds the minimum open volume area requirements. Finding: C. The existing nonconforming structure and the proposed addition(s) will be compatible with the existing and allowed pattern of development for the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The existing nonconforming structure was originally constructed in 1936 and has not been detrimental to the occupants or neighbors of the dwelling. 2. The proposed addition will increase the total floor area of the property, including the garage, to 2,860 square feet. The proposed floor area is not excessive and is compatible with the pattern of development in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed addition does not increase the maximum height of the existing residence, which is approximately 20 feet from existing grade. Since Broad Street consists of single-story and two-story single family residences, the proposed addition is compatible with the pattern of development in the neighborhood. 7. There is no conforming parking that currently exists on the property. The existing garage is nonconforming due to the full encroachment into the required 5-foot rear and 4-foot side setbacks, as well as having substandard interior width and depth. As currently configured, the garage provides substandard interior dimensions of 15-feet 6-inches wide by 17-feet 6 inches deep, where the Zoning Code requires 20-feet wide by 20-feet deep for a two-car garage. The new garage will be compliant to the setback standards and will provide an interior clearance of 20-feet wide by 20-feet deep. 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 7 of 10 4. The existing configuration of the property allows for vehicular access exclusively from Broad Street, while the surrounding neighborhood provides vehicular access exclusively from the alley, consistent with City policy. The subject property is the only lot on Broad Street, between San Bernardino Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue, to have a curb cut on Broad Street. The granting of a modification would allow for a new garage with alley access and result in the existing driveway approach on Broad Street to be consistent with the pattern of development for the neighborhood. Finding: D. The level of nonconformity will not pose a health and safety threat for the property owner, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The existing nonconforming structure, which has existed since 1936, has not been detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City. 2. The east side of the structure encroaches into the side yard setback. The side setback to the west of the lot will comply with the required 4-foot setback, which also fulfills the requirement that a minimum 36-inch wide passageway should be maintained within at least one side setback area adjacent to the principal structure. 3. The existing side yard setback of approximately 2 feet 10 inches maintains adequate separation for light and air. Also, as conditioned, the encroaching wall will be modified to comply with fire ratings and seismic stability per Building Code. 4. The approval of a modification permit is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). The purpose and intent of the nonconforming code provisions is to encourage nonconforming structures to become more conforming over time and to abate those uses that may adversely affect the general welfare of persons and property. The nonconforming garage will be demolished and brought into conformance to provide two legal parking spaces. Finding: E. Limiting an expansion of the gross floor area to fifty (50) percent of the existing structure would be inequitable given the specific circumstances. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The applicant may reduce the addition to the residence to not exceed 50 percent of the existing floor area of the structure to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Given the intent of the project is to provide a new two-car garage, 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 8 of 10 new master bedroom suite, and new kitchen expansion on the first floor, a redesign to reduce the size of the addition will significantly impact the objectives of the project and would not provide similar benefits to the applicant. 2. Limiting the expansion would prevent the applicant from retaining the traditional style of the home. The proposed addition of approximately 68 percent is modest given the existing size of the home. The resulting size of the home is 2,860 square feet, which is approximately 62 percent less than the 7,560 square feet allowed. 3. The existing residence, built in 1936, has a unique architectural design that resembles a traditional California farmhouse cottage. The removal of the east wall would require the complete demolition of the residence, eliminating the architectural character and charm from the original construction and greatly increasing the scope of work. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Modification Permit No. MD2016-016, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review 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 8t" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. AYES: Dunlap, Koetting, Kramer, Weigand, Zak NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler BY: W��`7 BY: Peter Zak, Secr to 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval (Exhibit "A") shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 5. The existing driveway approach on Broad Street shall be plugged per City Standard STD-165-L. 6. All stone pavers, loose gravel, and fencing shall be removed from the Broad Street right-of-way. 7. The curb and gutter along Broad Street shall be reconstructed. 8. The existing brick carriage walk will require an encroachment permit and encroachment agreement. 9. A 36-inch box street tree within Broad Street right-of-way shall be installed (tree type per City Council Policy G-6). 10. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within twenty-four (24) months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 11. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Davis Modification Permit including, but not limited to, Modification Permit No. MD2016-016 (PA2016-180). This indemnification shall 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 Page 10 of 10 include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 03-08-2016