Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0_Funke Residence Variance_PA2018-042 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 5, 2019 % Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Funke Residence Variance (PA2018-042) Variance No. VA2018-002 SITE LOCATION: 536 Hazel Drive APPLICANT: Erich and Tracey Funke OWNER: Erich and Tracey Funke PLANNER: Liz Westmoreland, Assistant Planner Westmoreland a)newportbeachca.gov, 949-644-3234 PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant proposes to construct a 777-square-foot addition to an existing 2,011- square-foot, single-family residence to accommodate a code-compliant two-car garage and additional second floor living area. A variance is requested to allow a portion of the proposed garage and new second floor bedroom to encroach two feet into the required five-foot front setback along Hazel Drive. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities)of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-037 approving Variance No. VA2018-002 (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 V� QP �P Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 2 VICINITY MAP P „0.a�_ .j . 59 or y . � µ^ � / ��t�/• fir ,• �•• 6� GENERAL PLAN ZONING %a S e LOCATION GENERALPLANj ZONING CURRENT USE RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit ON-SITE Residential Detached Residential) Single-Family Residences NORTH RS-D R-1 Single-Family Residences SOUTH RS-D R-1 Single-Family Residences R-1-6000 (Single-Unit RS-D Residential, 6,000 Canyon and Single-Family EAST indicates min. lot area) Residences WEST RS-D R-1 Single-Family Residences 3 V� QP �P Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property is located at 536 Hazel Drive at the eastern extent of the Corona del Mar community, north of East Coast Highway and abutting Bulk Gully to the east. The lot is approximately 6,150 square feet in area. The majority of the lot is a natural canyon area with a steep slope from the eastern edge of the residence down into the valley below. The bottom of the canyon roughly coincides with the rear property line, which is approximately 80 feet below Hazel Drive. The properties along the canyon rim include single-family residential uses with one- and two-unit residential development to the west. The project is not located within the coastal zone. The existing residence was constructed in the 1950s, when construction on steep slopes was less common. The residence is approximately 2,011 square feet and contains three bedrooms, a game room, and office. The existing building includes three stories with a lower-level deck and a mid-level deck. The residence is considered nonconforming because only one substandard carport space (approximately 10 feet 8 inches wide by 14 feet deep) is provided where the Zoning Code requires two enclosed garage spaces. The residence is also considered legal non-conforming because a portion of the rear dining room extends beyond the principal structure stringline identified in General Plan Policy NR23.6 (see Canyon Stringline Policy discussion below). Protect Description The applicant proposes to construct an addition of 777 square feet to the existing 2,011 square-foot, single-family residence. The addition would consist of a new 428-square- foot, two-car garage and 349 square feet of additional living area. The code-compliant garage would replace the existing one-space carport, entryway, and bathroom. The laundry area would be relocated from the carport to a laundry room inside the house. The existing bedroom on the ground floor will be relocated to the second floor as part of the project in order to accommodate the new entryway into the residence, resulting in no net increase in the number of bedrooms. The two existing decks will be repaired and will not extend further into Buck Gully. The applicant requests a variance to allow a portion of the new garage and second floor bedroom to encroach two feet into the required five-foot front yard setback along Hazel Drive. The remainder of the building would remain in compliance with the front setback requirement of five feet. No additional deviations are requested to accommodate the remodel and addition. Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 4 Background Modification Permit No. 3366 In 1988, a Modification Permit No. M3366 was approved for the subject site to allow the existing carport to be converted into a one-car garage that would encroach three feet into the required five-foot front yard setback. The permit was also required to allow a bathroom and dining room expansion at the rear of the existing residence due to the nonconforming parking status. The project was never constructed and the permit expired. A setback reduction of this size - i.e., greater than a 10-percent setback deviation - can no longer be considered through the modification permit process since the comprehensive Zoning Code update in 2010. Canyon Stringline Policy As part of the 2006 General Plan Update, the Natural Resources Element was updated to include a canyon development stringline policy (Policy NR 23.6) for the first time. The policy was implemented in the General Plan in an effort to maintain the natural topography along Buck Gully and Morning Canyon to mirror Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.3-18 that was implemented in 2005 for similar areas located in the coastal zone. Prior to 2006, there were no policies or standards regulating canyon development and property owners had the ability to develop down to their rear setback line (10 feet from rear property line). General Plan Policy NR 23.6 states the following: Policy NR 23.6 Canyon Development Standards Establish canyon development setbacks based on the predominant line of existing development for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Do not permit development to extend beyond the predominant line of existing development by establishing a development stringline where a line is drawn between nearest adjacent corners of existing structures on either side of the subject property. Establish development stringlines for principal structures and accessory improvements. The subject property includes portions of Buck Gully, therefore the project is subject the stringline limitations of the policy. Unlike setbacks that are typically applied to each lot on a block uniformly, canyon development stringlines vary on a lot-by-lot basis. Due to the stringline methodology, the existing location of one neighbor's home directly impacts the amount of development that can occur on the adjacent property. The Zoning Code provides no regulations to implement this policy. However, staff implements the policy as written following the existing standards adopted to implement identical policy language for coastal properties along Buck Gully, absent Coastal Zone procedural and permitting requirements. In summary, if a neighboring building extends farther into the canyon, one is generally able to build a larger building that extends farther into the canyon (see Figure 1). Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 5 Figure 1: Conceptual Stringline Example Je CO rest Corner Principal Structure Stringline � 1 J } •. h r�- l: DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan The site is designated RS-D (Single-Unit Residential Detached) by the General Plan Land Use Element, which allows for the development of single-family residential uses such as the project. The properties located along the canyon in this area are restricted by the principal and accessory structure stringlines pursuant to General Plan Policy NR23.6, as noted previously. Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 6 As illustrated in Figure 2, which is based on a survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor for this project, the subject property has a principal stringline ranging from approximately 40 to 42 feet. The existing residence is nonconforming in that a small portion of the existing dwelling (the dining room) encroaches beyond the principal structure stringline at the rear, reaching a built depth of approximately 45 feet from the front setback line. The proposed addition is located on the street side of the property, and is well within the stringline requirements for principal and accessory structures. The existing decks located above the canyon are within the accessory structure stringline that is drawn from the nearest adjacent corners of similar deck features. Figure 2: Subject Property Stringline -42 feet ------------- - - - - - Principal • • Stringline I NPR Accessory I Stringline I F I I 1 IqN ' M—W4U/AOKdt \ S\IIItlIIL I -�CbIb KO!\O ' I 16WNIIp KOInpC — .—-----.-__ _ �40 Feet Q Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 7 Zoning Code The subject site is located within the R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District, which is intended to provide for single-family development. The proposed project complies with applicable development standards as illustrated in Table 1, except for the requested encroachment into the front setback. The Zoning Code requires a minimum five-foot front yard setback as measured from the front property line to the face of the building finish. The Zoning Code allows for deviations of up to ten percent with the approval of a modification permit. Because the deviation requested is approximately 40 percent, a variance is required to implement the project. Table 1: Zoning Code Development Standards Table 1 —Zoning Code Development Standards Development Standard Standard Proposed Setbacks (min.) Front(Hazel Dr.) 5 feet 2 feet(garage) 5 feet(livingarea Sides 4 feet 4 feet Rear 10 feet <95 feet Allowable Floor Area max. 7,164 square feet 2,788 square feet Allowable 3'd Floor Area max. 716 square feet N/A Open Space min. 716 square feet > 2,700 s uare feet Parkin min. 2-car garage 2-car garage Height(max.) 24 feet flat roof 24 feet flat roof 29 feet sloped roof 29 feet sloped roof The existing residence is currently nonconforming due to parking standards. The existing building includes one substandard carport space, where two garage spaces are required. The proposed project would allow the building to become conforming to residential parking standards for single-family dwellings. Because of the nonconforming parking conditions, NBMC Section 20.38.060.A (Nonconforming Parking) limits additions to the building to approximately 201 square feet (10 percent of the existing gross floor area of the building). In this case, the property owner could add only 201 square feet. If the two- car garage is provided, future additions are limited to the maximum allowable floor area of 1.5 times the buildable area of the property. There is also a small portion of a deck that is located in the side setback that measures approximately two feet above existing grade, exceeding the 18 inch maximum height standard for decks in setback areas. The nonconforming deck is proposed to remain and any work is limited to repair and maintenance. The existing decks comply with the canyon stringline policy. 9 Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 8 Variance A variance is a request to allow a project to deviate from development standards when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. A variance can only be granted to maintain parity between the variance site and nearby properties in the same zoning district to avoid the granting of special privileges to one property. Section 20.52.090.17 (Variances, Findings and Decision) of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving a variance: A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and F. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Applicant's Objective The applicant seeks to expand, remodel and modernize the structure while maintaining as much of the original construction as possible, and creating a code-compliant two-car garage. Other properties in the vicinity have garages, where the subject site has only a carport that is not functional due to substandard dimensions (10 feet 8 inches wide by 14 feet deep). 10 Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 9 Buildable Depth and Topography The existing residence is nonconforming in that portions of the existing dwelling (the dining room) encroach beyond the established stringline at the rear, reaching an as-built depth of approximately 45 feet from the front setback line. In comparison, other properties along the canyon in this block extend to an actual constructed as-built depth ranging from roughly 54 feet to as much as 110 feet. The average depths of existing development along the block is approximately 78 feet. The six southerly properties on Hazel Drive near East Coast Highway reach a depth of at least 100 feet from the front setback line to existing decks, pools, and principal structures. Only a small portion of the subject residence is encroaching past the stringline and this area would be retained as part of the residential addition. No new encroachments are proposed. Due to the location of existing and approved development on neighboring properties, the subject site is disproportionately constrained by the stringline policy as compared to other properties of similar size. The subject lot has a principal development stringline of approximately 40 to 42 feet, where the other properties of similar size on the canyon have typical stringline depths ranging from 48 to 67 feet and as much as 90 feet. The property directly south of the subject site has the second most restrictive stringline (after the subject property) with a depth of 39 to 47 feet. The subject property is also a steeply sloping lot as shown in the following figure. Fi ure 3: Site Topography SP� - rory - h 4� - h tip �� yf 1 1 Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 10 Instead of requesting relief from the stringline limitation to encroach into the natural canyon, the Applicant is requesting relief from the front setback requirement to construct a garage and addition two-feet into the front yard setback on Hazel Drive. The reduced setback request is similar to the approved and expired 1988 Modification Permit application. Attachment PC 4 (Stringline Exhibits) shows a rough depiction of the principal stringlines on the block with a few approximate depths listed for scale. The proposed buildable depth of the project is still less than the average for the canyon properties along Hazel Drive. Buildable Area With application of development stringlines, the buildable area' of the subject property is also significantly constrained when compared to other properties abutting the canyon on the same block. Attachment No. PC 4 includes exhibits that illustrate the approximate stringlines for the block. Specifically, the property is limited to a buildable area of approximately 1,353 square feet. In comparison, lots of similar size in the area have a buildable area of roughly 1,734 square feet (526 Hazel Drive), 1,819 square feet, (524 Hazel Drive), 2,006 (520 Hazel Drive). The property directly adjacent to the south of the site (532 Hazel Drive) has the closest buildable area with approximately 1,513 square feet. Thus, the subject property is disproportionally limited as compared to other properties of the same size with identical zoning. The proposed front yard setback encroachment will increase the buildable area of the subject lot by less than 50 square feet (21 feet in width x 2 foot depth). Thus, the front setback encroachment is not requested for the purpose of overbuilding the site, but to accommodate a reasonable sized home with code-compliant parking that would remain below the average size home in the vicinity and respects canyon stringline limits. A condition of approval is included that prohibits future development to the rear of the property without removal of the front yard encroachments granted by this variance or reevaluation by the Planning Commission. Alternative Designs Staff explored other options with the Applicant, including a redesign to place the garage and second floor outside the front setback. However, existing structural components of the building, including a foundation and bearing wall parallel to the street at the center of the house effectively limits the position of the interior wall of the garage. Setting the garage wall further back into the existing structure to comply with the 5-foot front setback would require the complete removal of the bearing wall and reconstruction of a large portion of the building, significantly increasing the scope of work. Alternatively, "Buildable Area' in this instance does not refer to the Zoning Code definition of buildable area, where it is considered to be the lot area minus setbacks. In this case,the buildable area is defined as the actual footprint area where the principal structure could be constructed, which is outside of setbacks and the stringline area. 12 Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 11 maintaining the front setback without removing the existing bearing wall would result in a parking depth of approximately 18 feet, less than the code-required 20-foot parking depth, which would reduce the practical usefulness of the proposed garage. Additionally, staff explored the option of placing the second floor bedroom outside the front yard setback with only the garage encroaching within the required front yard setback. If the second floor were setback to the five-foot setback line, then the front wall of the proposed garage posts would not be available to support the load of the second floor. Refer to Figure 3 for a visual description of the structural restraints. Therefore, a beam would be required to be placed within the garage ceiling to support the second floor, reducing the ceiling clearance to less than the minimum 7 feet required by the Zoning Code. The reduction in ceiling height would also require a variance, but would restrict the practical usefulness of the garage. Moving the second floor back would also result in a smaller bedroom, with a depth of about 10 feet instead of approximately 12 feet. Figure 3: Second Floor Setback Alternative ,I ATTIc I Lire ofsectond Ilorrc wall 1; as designed Wmoved W be wit inner wall emoved l uwithin eaiwnP mthack i r 3''6 Y-0' lnw.o-uoricc yuage ein.r ;rec1 1 eag,It...prcermn'rn.rnllurl •. 4 Garage .'lmltap J.err. Garage ceiling a ulreuly e.a,inel)low;a large Cram worrld he 1.w Jun required height � II 1 Ex.Load Bearing watt 13 Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 12 Thus, an alternative plan to accommodate a garage and 349 square foot addition would potentially result in either major reconstruction of the residence or a substandard garage. Special Privilege The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties zoned R-1 as it allows the property owner to maintain equity with other homes in the neighborhood where additions have occurred. The project allows the applicant to construct a two-garage garage, which is standard for a single- family residence. The project is also consistent with historic development in the neighborhood and would remain compatible as several neighboring homes are nonconforming to setbacks and a few were allowed additions or new construction within the front yard setback, such as 526, 516, and 416 Hazel Drive. Conclusion The proposed encroachment of two feet into the front yard setback is minimal and would appear negligible to the surrounding properties with only 88 square feet of the addition located in the front setback area. The new stairs and entryway would not encroach into the front yard setback and would provide building articulation and visual relief along the street. The variance would allow a code-compliant two-car garage to be constructed on the property while maintaining a substantial portion the existing structure. The new garage would improve compatibility with the neighborhood by providing two off-street parking spaces, where the homeowners are currently required to use street parking. The natural canyon areas behind the subject lot would be preserved, in keeping with the goals of the General Plan. Alternatives 1. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any additional requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2). -4 Funke Variance Planning Commission, December 5, 2019 Page 13 Environmental Review This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The Class 1 exemption includes additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet whichever is less. In this case, the project includes an addition of 777 square feet to an existing 2,011 square foot single-family residence.Additionally, staff believes there are no unusual circumstances attributable to the site and project that would disqualify use of the exemption as identified in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines (i.e. no cumulative impact, no significant impact, no impact to scenic highways, the site is not a hazardous waste site, and the site is not a historical resource). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: UzWeitmoreland, Assistant Planner Jim Campbell, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial PC 3 Applicant's Justification PC 4 Stringline Exhibits PC 5 Public Comments PC 6 Project Plans 15 V� QP �P 2� Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions 17 V� QP �P sg RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING VARIANCE NO. VA2018-002 FOR A FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT LOCATED AT 536 HAZEL DRIVE (PA2018-042) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Erich and Tracey Funke ("Applicant')with respect to the subject property located at 536 Hazel Drive and legally described as Lot 28 of Block B of Tract No. 673 Corona Del Mar ('Property") requesting approval of a variance. 2. The Applicant proposes to construct an addition of 777 square feet to an existing 2,011 square-foot, single-family residence to accommodate a compliant two-car garage and additional second floor living area ('Project'). The two-car garage required under Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") would replace an existing one-space carport, entryway, and bathroom. The Applicant requests a variance to allow a portion of the garage and new second floor bedroom to encroach two feet into the required five (5) foot front yard setback along Hazel Drive. The remainder of the building would remain in compliance with the front setback requirement of five (5)feet. No additional deviations are requested to accommodate the remodel and addition. The structure is considered legal non-conforming because a portion of the rear dining area extends beyond the principal structure stringline identified in City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan") Policy NR23.6 (Canyon Development Standards). 3. The Property is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The Property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on December 5, 2019 in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ('Ralph M. Brown Act') and Chapter 20.62 of the 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 is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 2 of 10 2. The Class 1 exemption includes additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet whichever is less. In this case, the Project includes an addition of 777 square feet to an existing 2,011 square foot single-family residence. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.090(F) (Findings and Decision) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of a variance are set forth: Finding: A. That there are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the Property(e.g. location, shape, size, surrounding, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. As part of the General Plan Update of 2006, Natural Resource Element Policy NR23.6 (Canyon Development Standards) was adopted in an effort to stop any further encroachment of development into Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. The policy limits new development based on stringlines drawn from corners of existing development on adjacent lots. As a result, development on the Property cannot be expanded in the same manner as other properties within the vicinity that developed prior to the 2006 establishment of the canyon development stringline limitations. 2. Unlike setbacks that are typically applied to each lot on a block uniformly, canyon development stringlines vary on a lot-by-lot basis. 3. The buildable area of lots along the canyon are defined by the front and side setbacks, and the canyon development stringline to the rear. The buildable area of the Property is significantly constrained when compared to other properties abutting the canyon on the same block. Specifically, the Property is limited to an allowable buildable area of approximately 1,353 square feet. In comparison, lots of similar size in the area have a buildable area of roughly 1,734 (526 Hazel Drive), 1,819 square feet, (524 Hazel Drive), and 2,006 (520 Hazel Drive). The property directly adjacent to the south of the site (532 Hazel Drive) has the closest buildable area with approximately 1,513 square feet. 4. The buildable depth of the Property as measured from the front setback line to the approximate stringline for principal structure ranges between 40 to 42 feet. It should be noted that the stringline is drawn at an angle so the depth is greater on the north side and decreases as it moves south. In comparison to similar properties along the canyon, the buildable depth for principal structures generally increases the further south a lot is located on the block. The adjacent lot at 532 Hazel Drive has a buildable depth of 39 feet and the buildable depths of lots progressively increase up to 101 01-25-19 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 3 of 10 feet for 408 Hazel Drive located on the south end of the block. Thus, the Property is disproportionately impacted by the principal structure stringline. 5. The existing residence is nonconforming in that portions of the existing dwelling encroach beyond the established stringline at the rear, reaching a built depth of approximately 45 feet from the front setback line. In comparison, other properties along the canyon in this block extend to an actual constructed depth ranging from approximately 54 feet to as much as 110 feet. The average depths of existing development along the block is approximately 78 feet. The six (6) southerly properties on Hazel Drive near East Coast Highway reach a depth of at least 100 feet from the front setback line to existing decks, pools, and principal structures. Finding: B. That strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the Property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 . The Property comprises 6,150 square feet, but the buildable area is only 1,353 square feet. Other similarly sized properties in the area have buildable areas ranging from as low as 1,513 to over 2,000 square feet. Thus, the Property is disproportionally limited as compared to other properties of the same size with identical zoning. 2. The Property was constructed in the 1950s when construction on steep slopes was less common and does not encroach as far down the canyon as newer development in the vicinity. As a result, the site is now more constrained due to the application of canyon development stringlines. 3. The Applicant seeks to maintain as much of the original construction as possible, while creating a compliant two-car garage. Other properties in the vicinity have garages to store vehicles, whereas the Property has only a carport that is functional due to substandard interior dimensions (10 feet 8 inches wide by 14 feet deep). 4. Because of existing structural components of the building including a foundation and bearing wall parallel to the street at the center of the house, the garage cannot not be placed outside the setback without complete removal and reconstruction of a large portion of the building. Alternatively, maintaining the front setback without removing the existing bearing wall would result in a parking depth of approximately 18 feet, less than the code-required 20-foot parking depth, which would significantly impact the usability of the intended garage. 01-25-19 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 4 of 10 Finding: C. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The existing carport on-site is not functional due to its substandard size and requires the residents to park on the street. New residential buildings in the City are required to provide on-site garage parking, where the existing building has none. 2. The variance is intended to allow the Property owner the ability to provide for a code- compliant two (2) car garage and replacement of the third existing bedroom on the second floor of the structure without completely demolishing the building. Providing a two (2) car garage would afford the Applicant the ability to maintain a substantial property right enjoyed by others properties in the vicinity. 3. The location of the second floor improvements is required to align with the first floor garage location for structural reasons. If the second floor were setback to the five (5) foot front setback line, then the garage posts would not be sufficient to support the load of the second floor. Therefore, a beam would be required to be placed within the garage ceiling to support the second floor, reducing the ceiling clearance to less than seven (7) feet, which is less than the code minimum of 7 feet. The reduction in ceiling height would also require a variance, but would restrict the practical usefulness of the garage. 4. Additionally, if the garage or second floor area were pushed back towards the rear of the Property, the existing foundations would need to be removed and replaced. This would result in a significant expansion in scope of work by essentially requiring the complete demolition and reconstruction of the house. The Applicant seeks to remove as little as possible from the existing building, while providing a code- compliant garage and avoiding the disturbance to the canyon slope at the rear of the Property. Finding: D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 . The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties zoned Single-Unit Residential (R-1) as it allows the Property owner to maintain equity with other homes in the neighborhood where additions have occurred. The Project is consistent with historic development in the neighborhood. Several neighboring homes are nonconforming to setbacks and a few were allowed additions or new construction within the front yard setback, such as 01-25-19 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 5 of 10 526, 516, and 416 Hazel Drive. Additionally, a few properties can have modification permits or variances to allow encroachments into side setbacks as well. 2. The proposed variance would not result in more floor area or a higher floor area ratio than surrounding properties of similar size. 3. The buildable depth for the Property is disproportionately limited as compared to other canyon properties of similar size, and the requested variance would allow the Property to have a buildable depth closer to other properties along the canyon. The proposed buildable depth is still less than the average for the canyon properties along Hazel Drive. 4. The proposed encroachments are similar to those granted under Modification Permit No. M3366, approved in 1988 for the subject site, allowing the existing carport to be converted into a (1) one car garage that would encroach three (3) feet into the required five (5) foot front yard setback. The Project was never constructed. The Project requests a two (2) foot encroachment into the same front yard setback for the purpose of building a compliant two (2) car garage. 5. The Project would not result in a net increase in bedrooms on the Property that could be viewed as the granting of a special privilege, and no additional deviations are requested such as relief from floor area or building height limitations. Findinq: E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 6. The overall design, based upon the proposed plans, meets residential design criteria provided within NBMC Section 20.48.180(B)(2) (Design Criteria) by avoiding long unarticulated walls, providing architectural treatment of all elevations, and emphasizing the entry and window elements at the front fagade. 7. The Public Works Department has reviewed the Project for compliance with line of sight considerations and driveway standards. The Project complies with Public Works requirements and their conditions of approval are included. 8. The remodel and addition Project focuses construction to the developed street side of the Property, instead of adding floor area near the natural canyon. 9. The Project will require the Property owner to upgrade the existing building to meet all current Fire and Building Codes, including fire ratings and seismic standards, improving the safety of the home for its occupants and neighboring properties. 01-25-19 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 6 of 10 10. Other properties along Hazel Drive have legally constructed buildings that encroach into the front yard setback, and they have not proven to be detrimental or created hazards to the public. 11. Approximately 21 feet 2 inches (linear measurement) of the width of the structure would encroach into the front setback, which is approximately 50 percent of the width of the lot. The remaining width (12 feet 8 inches) of the structure would maintain the five (5)foot front setback. Therefore, this variance would not have a substantial visual effect on the neighborhood. Finding: F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 12. The General Plan identifies policies to protect natural resources including the canyon. The proposed addition and remodel would further Goal NR 23 of the General Plan by concentrating growth to the developed street side of the Property instead of extending the building into the natural canyon area. The addition complies with Policies NR 23.1 (Maintenance of Natural Topography) and NR 23.6 (Canyon Development Standards) by minimizing alteration of the site's natural topography. Relief from the stringline policy is not requested; instead, the Applicant is requesting a two (2) foot variance to encroach into the front setback to provide a compliant two (2) car garage and related second floor addition above. 13. The Property is zoned Single-Unit Residential (R-1) which is intended to provide for single-family residential uses. The existing building is a single-family residence, which would not change as part of the Project; therefore, approval of the variance will not affect density or intensity of uses. The Project includes the construction of a compliant two (2) car garage, which would allow the Property to conform to current Zoning Code standards for residential parking. 14. Pursuant to Title 20 of the NBMC, a structure of up to 7,164 square feet (or 1.5 times the buildable area outside of setbacks) could be constructed on the Property. The proposed addition and remodel would result in a structure totaling 2,788 square feet, including a 428 square foot two (2) car garage. Thus, the front setback encroachment is not requested for the purpose of overbuilding the site, but rather to accommodate a reasonable sized home that would remain below the average size home in the vicinity and that respects canyon stringline limits. A condition of approval is included that prohibits future encroachment to the rear of the Property without removal of the front yard encroachments granted by this variance. 15. The Property is not located within a specific plan area or the Coastal Zone. 01-25-19 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 7 of 10 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves VA2018-002 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Peter Koetting, Chairman BY: Lee Lowrey, Secretary 01-25-19 2.5 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) PLANNING 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. No future additions shall be permitted unless the structure is brought into conformance with all applicable zoning standards, including front setback requirements. 3. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 5. 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. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Variance file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Variance and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 8. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 01-25-19 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 9 of 10 9. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 11. Should the Property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, Property owner or the leasing agent. 12. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 13. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 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. 14. 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 Funke Variance including, but not limited to, Variance No. VA2018-002 (PA2018-042). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The Applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The Applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Division Conditions 15. 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 ("CBC"). 01-25-19 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-### Page 10 of 10 16. Project shall comply with Chapter 7A of the CBC. Public Works Conditions 17. The new driveway shall be constructed per City Standard STD-162-L. 18. Applicant shall coordinate with 540 Hazel Drive regarding the driveway reconstruction along that Project's frontage (Hazel Drive). 19. Driveway slopes shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-B and STD160-L-C. 20. Applicant shall reconstruct all damaged sidewalk panels, curb, gutter, and street along the Hazel Drive Property frontage as determined by the Public Works Department. 21. Applicant shall remove all unpermitted private encroachments, including but not limited to pavers, potted plants, fences, and walls, within the Hazel Avenue public right-of-way. 22. Per the Municipal Operations Division, the existing City tree may be removed. A new 48-inch box tree shall be installed along the Hazel Drive frontage in a location approved by City. 01-25-19 22 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial 29 V� QP �P 30 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO.VA2018-002 FOR A FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT LOCATED AT 536 HAZEL DRIVE (PA2018- 042) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Erich and Tracey Funke with respect to property located at 536 Hazel Drive and legally described as Lot 28 of Block B of Tract No. 673 Corona Del Mar requesting approval of a variance. 2. The applicant proposes to construct an addition of 777 square feet to an existing 2,011 square-foot, single-family residence to accommodate a compliant two-car garage and additional second floor living area. The code required two-car garage would replace an existing one-space carport, entryway, and bathroom. The applicant requests a variance to allow a portion of the garage and new second floor bedroom to encroach two feet into the five-foot front yard setback along Hazel Drive. The remainder of the building would remain in compliance with the front setback requirement of five feet. No additional deviations are requested to accommodate the remodel and addition. The structure is considered legal non-conforming because a portion of the rear dining area extends beyond the principal structure stringline identified in General Plan Policy NR23.6. 3. The subject property is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on December 5, 2019 in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. ### Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission may approve a variance application only after making each of the six required findings set forth in NBMC Section 20.52.090.E (Findings and Decision). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the variance is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of NBMC Section 20.52.090.F (Findings and Decision) because the front yard setback is not compatible with construction in the vicinity and the circumstances and conditions are not unique to the subject property. 2. Applicant's request to encroach into the front yard setback would constitute a special privilege. 3. The proposed project can be redeveloped to comply with all zoning and general plan regulations. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Variance Application No. VA2018-002. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20 Planning and Zoning. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5T" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Peter Koetting, Chairman BY: Lee Lowrey, Secretary Tmplt:04/14/10 32 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Justification 33 V� QP �P 31{ Cynthia Childs, Architect comma I)TY DEVELOPMENT Zln>�aeCu m ryes OR 2 4.Z019 2732 East Coast Hwy, Ste. B Corona del Mar, CA. 92625 CITY OF Ph. 949-718-3528 ° cchildsQccarchitect.com ®�� www.cearchitect.com April 23, 2019 Liz Westmoreland,Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach, Community Development Re: Notice of Incomplete Filing,Variance No,VA2018-002 (PL2018-042) Address: 536 Hazel Dr, CDM Architectural Justification for Variance Request (per Architect) 1. 536 Hazel unusual conditions: The lot is a 6150-square-foot lot, with an R-1 zoning designation. The lot is relatively narrow (40'), and slopes steeply downhill into Buck Gully. There is only a small, relatively level area adjacent to the street (24% with the remainder of the lot sloping steeply; there is a total elevation change of 76 feet from front to back. Construction on steeply sloping lots is necessarily more complex and expensive than for level or gently sloping lots. A relatively flat lot of the same shape would have a buildable area of 4776 sq. ft. (allowable floor area limit of 7164 sq.ft.). j The lot currently has a 5' front setback per Setback Map S-10-C, but the rear setback is determined by a development stringline currently ranging from 107' (north side) to 120' (south side) from the rear property line. This leaves only a small footprint available: the actual buildable area on the lot within the setbacks and stringline is 1353 sq. ft. 2. The owners wish to remodel the house commensurate with houses in the area, including adequate parking in compliance with current zoning standards. This will require the construction of a garage to provide 2 covered parking spaces. Currently within the existing house, there is a foundation and bearing wall parallel to the street at the center of the house, which provides a logical limit of the remodel, to preserve a substantial part of the existing house. The location of the bearing wall is approximately 18'-6" from the existing setback; creation of a complying garage within the established 5' would not be possible without substantial additional demolition and reconstruction, and would reduce the area available behind the garage. (As noted above, the available buildable area is small, so taking approximately 400 square feet for a conforming garage would leave only 953 square feet available for a first-floor livable space). 35 3. The current house does not have an enclosed garage; the existing parking space is substandard (10'-8" x 14'), and is inadequate to provide any reasonable parking on-site. This lack of parking increases the amount of street parking, as the owners must park on the street. The requested variance,therefore, would preserve a substantial amount of the existing house, limiting the amount of necessary remodeling, allow a sufficient space for first-floor living space within an especially restricted lot, and provide the required amount of parking on-site while decreasing the amount of street parking. 4. Granting of the requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. There are a number of similar lots on the street which are constructed to within 3 feet of the front property line and one home that is within 2 feet of the property line. The proposed construction at 536 Hazel will not be closer to the street than these other existing 3 foot setback houses. 5. Existing sidewalks,parkways, and street width are unaffected. The proposed house would be constructed to comply with required clearances to adjacent structures and property lines for fire safety. 6. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section, this Zoning Code,the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The variance does not request any change in land use, density or public accommodation. Sincerely, a Cynthia Childs Architect I 3C Attachment No. PC 4 Stringline Exhibits 37 V� QP �P 3g Stringlines: 408-520 Hazel Dr. \- f 11j rA JJ" e 5o S0 s 1 At 4 Q p -2 A a � a 4. O r ` H• a r !• e T s• � 7 ��!�. ♦ yf' O 1 '1`. ' r 'd rl ••7,. F s, �1 r /Ia �• ..� t� �P l ' A4 } e r . Map Legend ^°D �oti0 Stringline ' aft �•� Distance from Setback* tl = Every.. able~hasbwnma aetoassvetle4xaDtlla NEGIS Feet a pr ,brvr.The City of x x!WPOIT .eacx empios andagents disclaim mry W1 repn Maln'to any resut blanetl n RE... ld.a ya nfrurotlg dnrye rn a ItyZ01e *Distances approximated for descriptive purposes 39 Stringlines: 510-544 Hazel Dr. y�;• A l so k♦ P v�'� Yq '`4 s �k � � i + PAS, . a 41 43 . .� 4 ♦ ,,. �, ,tie _ "'fAAi-��. _\ /�• ' ; ` i` hs P ♦ �"♦�!.. b y ti J l hti . ,moo J UY y t r J � Map Legend Stringline i•� Distance from Setback* a. . A 0 40 80 UlsNalmer: NEMS evedakapr db egad M1aaeeenmadefo .ft M.a.dryat Feet IM1edafa sand Agents (N and 91 poNB Whtytdn Sarnia+`e NEWPORT !F.C N employees and agoras obtained ary and NI respsnsGlRy Gam or nlVin9 to any`•a+lle abfamed in His uee. 11a@et9 *Distances are approximated for descriptive purposes. 40 Attachment No. PC 5 Public Comments 41 V� QP �P From: Stephen Prough<steveproughl@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 8:51 AM To: Lee,Amanda; rgarciamay@newportbeachca.gov; Westmoreland, Liz; Koetting, Peter Subject: December 5 hearing for variance request 536 Hazel Drive. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To Liz Westmoreland and Planning Commission Kathy and Steve Prough are very supportive of the variance request for Erich and Tracey Funke at 536 Hazel Drive. We live at 527 Hazel Drive which is two houses down across the street. The request for a variance on the proposed garage is reasonable and will conform to our neighborhood and is the best solution. Hazel drive is a very special street in Corona del Mar. Once folks move here,they never leave. We have lived in our home since 1978 or 40 years but we are not even close to the oldest residents on the street. We want to maintain the character of our neighborhood. The proposed plan and variance request is consistent with this desire. As I look outside I see 8 homes in a row built in last 25 years with similar garages. None of those homes needed a variance but the rules have changed. The variance request for the Funke's garage is very consistent with the homes on that side of the street. We are very supportive and are relieved that the Funke's will be maintaining the character of our street. These improvements will require a minimum of remodeling while protecting the canyon. Since they only have a carport, a garage removes two cars from the street. The alternative is a complete scrape with new construction which makes no sense to the character of our street or canyon. Please approve the variance request at 536 Hazel drive. Thank you for listening Kathy and Steve Prough 527 Havel Drive 714-797-1157 cell -4.3 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 6 Project Plans 45 V� QP �P PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans REVISIONS nBY / U O AC 4--j ti o U U y Lry 00 AC _ ,yA? O NV' M _ N M ° k�G cd c' 00 U 6� O O �I PROPOSED NEW OONSTRUOTION OFy p0 AT 540 HAZEL T� U U 190 V1 �° — 6�� (167.80NG Q w AC O 0 ''� W 0 O ci of 0 C�� O p0 O (7 0 0" 0 ,y°° 'L O O ,---y. ) p p15?° — O 0n� • � M U �: 899 g < U L N 1 b / N �� 0 — 7 N k1 k° \ 1�-11 1�� 1r- 8S8 T WALE THICKNESS ,OF L , L1 S5022'00"E 146. 22' ^kk �6 N B UNKNOWN ti CONG - . Z ° ti �� COr ° it i K ----- -______ ----"--- -- - A AC D= — - — — ti L-110. 03 II I TRW U CONC. I ) 11 AR� U R=� 50. 00 `ti �� \ CP �� nvTrHa F NT �� CHII DS AC CONC. CONC. C-211219(yQ 1 ,n `rLOO FQ_� O!p o'•,. — Q` K b0 '•�' O� Uk'V�RI�' 1,.i""� v coNC. AC L'L`VOO o O z ".'ti �� `ryOO. `ti ��E g' ?nn.c9 "I"T � .c ri nnr? _ w ��. ^^ k?° ,•`• O W AI AG `tip.� W # j �� 'i I Y 5 TURE o , W w TR lNE Lk r l o F� `ti �O -i XILI 5 TURE tio` k° O EP P 5 I NE 4' EX I TINS TO , Q REM IN AVE) IONS) e°kh' Op z Z O o o '� 0� 60�cc1 A� � t] W O . AC __ o _ �I N ti bF5 P CONC. d — — I o N N GONG. t tt ) N Q ryO OAF `" 6F5 °NCZO .06Fs CONC. n(194.15FS) — (S5022 00 E 161 . 70 ) o N ° U N y, a a Con _ O U POD, Z N ppA i 69 00 z - \ 25.0 AC o O z (222.46) N 2 w RIDGE z 5 Z U " m J = SQUARE FOOTAGE 2 STORY — EXISTING HOUSE z (202.67FS) BUILDING Z _ — Lower level 464 Sq. Ft. AG + ti First Floor 913 Sq. Ft. Second Floor 634 Sq. Ft. 4. = Total Living Space 2011 Sq. Ft. — — 5. Attic 85 Sq. Ft. z~/1 25. 0� GF.W. 1.4 G z 1o�p�- Lower Deck 295 Sq. Ft. First Floor Deck 272 Sq. Ft. r AC PROPOSED HOUSE Lower level 599 Sq. Ft. (+135) First Floor 779 Sq. Ft. (-134) Second Floor 982 Sq. Ft. (+348) DRAWN Total Living Space 2360 Sq. Ft. (+349) P.A. PROJECT CHECKED True NORTH Garage 428 Sq. Ft. (+428) C.C. North DATE Total Living + Garage 2788 Sq. Ft. (+777) 8/22/2019 Lower Deck 295 Sq. Ft. (+0) SCALE First Floor Deck 243 Sq. Ft. (-29) JOB NO. SHEET EXISTING SITE PLAN ^ O . 1 OF SHEETS 4:7 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro•ect Plans REVISIONS BY KEY NOTES NNew Fence or gate. (Less than 6-0" A.E.G.) New driveway and approach to be constructed per City Standard STD-162-L and STD-160-L-C. Construction of the new driveway shall be coordinated with 540 Hazel Drive,Permit#2530-2018. 3� New Retaining Wall(To be built by adjacent property owner)on approved permit#2530-2018 New Concrete Pavers.Placement of pavers within the right-of-way requires an encroachment agreement and encroachment permit from the Public Works Department i n-_. 5❑ Ex.Conc.Paving I NEx. Sidewalk to Remain 14;, � Existing Concrete steps {' N Existing Framed Steps z _ N Trash Area 0 Remove Ex.Tree AC Install New Street Tree>5'-0" from driveway(48"box). Size and location shall comply with (, 0 11 requirements by City Arborist Remove all unpermitted private encroachments within right-of-way, including but not limited to 4--J Oe 12 pavers,potted plants,fences and wall.Plant with ground cover(max 18"high) o OHO 13 Planter area in parkway-remove existing paving and provide ground cover(max. 18"high). N 00 O 0 Ln Cq 14 Ex. Water Meter in Vault(to remain).Adjust to meet new finish surface or grade C\ 06 �IGY Ex.Gas Meter in Vault(relocate onto property)at southside yard near fireplace v] F 16 Abandon existing sewer lateral at property line,and install new Sewer Lateral and Clean-Out et o per City STD-406-L. Z o Reconstruct all damaged sidewalk panels,curb,gutter and street along the Hazel Avenue property frontage as determined by the Public Works DepartmentQJ k L ti ' of 4 O� 1 3 8 — (167.SONG (� ,� cq O , 0 a 90 5 0 — �� •rlcr AC a �01 O? 06. 1 r1999 8ga � WALL HICKNESS 0 L I ^� F m S5022 00 E 146. 22 - Ex.G e 12 TPA. o -- -- - ---,-- -- c' --- ---- -- -- — ----- -- --- — ——— ——— ——— ——— --- -- ---- -----------------� AC co eb o. — —.—.—.—. = o o an. 200.30' FS ° — -- --- - - --- - SEWER in I �{}l� '� ' 199.63'FL /° 200.53'FS 1===== ___ _= k= \ G yNTHIA ~ CHILDS ;16 I0% -----, I \ V 2 I 200.50' FS i dCP o ° �� ------ 'C',` N, /�r5/ -__ °xY ' -_ ------ �__ I ,yti�' O \\\\ �' Ud y (AYVUZM,91,u^l , 5-0 4-0 O O + e °/ - AC 20053'T I � O• � ------y--Y-------, o I e`O IS o Drain x I o N ruor08ED 200.50 F.F. r dF 0* O O REMODEL V \ AC `ti �a C3 1° I 20053'FS ----- ---- oo I' I 2vtu.30 FL 200 97 Struct a Stringl• e ryo/ i ----LLI ----- I I G �� `ti \ MPT 12 13 FOI_ `L AC - � � � PA.��/ � - —✓i a z I OOo \\ W An 7i Stme e S line \ •�i �"( 6 ---- \ (-�`y �•-1 r � — I:: W Ik , I i N ti° PA. NF5 0 — o Ci Ct _ — r— Qti0° o° �° .` ! CONC20 .6GFSC ` ONC. 0(194.15F5) —I (S5Q22'00"F 161 . 70') Z i New Gas Meter y9 I — 60 '„� o 7 9 5 7 Location 1�4oy _ �o Ol O /M� �Ol � 0 C o 0 — L d Z 25.0 AC o CDz (222.46) w 0 0 o RIDGE �z z U 0 2 STORY z (zo267Fs) g U LD N G PROJECT o — True NORTH ' 1. North Ok6 AC �O'\- — 1 Z — ``tio` o — 4. — 7 25. q CF.W. 1.4 G AC F�1 V 1 ov O�OA°16 • Lti 5. v DRAWN P.A. CHECKED LEGEND C.C. DATE FF FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION PL PROPERTY LINE 9/11/2019 TC TOP OF CURB (EX.) EXISTING FG FINISH GRADE CL CENTERLINE SCALE FL FLOW LINE PA PLANTING AREA FS FINISH SURFACE DN DOWN Ex. Block Wall Max. 6-0"A.E.G. AEG ABOVE EXISTING GRADE JOB NO. DS DOWNSPOUT ®New Block Wall SHEET PROPOSED SITE PLAN A0 • 2 OF SHEETS -4117 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro•ect Plans REVISIONS BY , NORTH U p' 8' 16' U U _ AC SCALE: 1"=8' - o ,5 0 6 z a N — — AC �p o Lr1 00 N N 1 I ti o lb z uo _ Fy PROPOSED NEW GONSTRUGTION AT 540 HAZEL O (167.80NG° \ �v � • '� AC " ti '.°' Gl O�G� 10C�,'..E- \ C.7 WALL THICKNESS OF L •. 7 I o n f > >r r ,kk 1 ,y0 Cl N O .s 8S76 UNKNOWN p ��i p S5022 00 E 146.22 N coG ------------------- --- ----- - ----- --- - --- AD ' `q o (20gl 51FF) N I + I I ��, LI 110.03 CONIC. I G I EXI IN& TR.X o � O1 LINE , LD (NON-C,0WORMIN$) q50.00 i OF UPPER \ Op All FLOOR ORINTIOF PRD CIC. oT Ni kn CONC. i,211219/fle 1 AC z 0 U Soo i BUILDING P I I I G 0 N 209.00 UPFIER FLOOR I ILLI a> N NL/L `L° AD � F I I 192.32 Lo4II R FLOOR o w ij =fI! III �» I \RY 5 \ TU2E ` Wry 6TRIN6LINE 6G1°es O P AX TURE U i ° SYRINGLINEo P 00 �11 F`l I 6°F h I = I I ! EXI TING TO \\ Z RE IN ADD %5) oQ, 4 I z �A (, •rl 2NO AVE. 5 o I SETBACK i n N m u� N r71 11 r�F�l o F•L� �� W _ I z � Q VICINITY MAP ,h0 F�1 `,yp ONC.I CONC. o ee r do 09 6F5 20 .osFs coNc. 0(194.15FS) T ,! (S5Q22 00 E 161 .70 N M 01�1 `,LO o z '70' ' 69 Ct N F� Ct 9,�o z 4. UL --e> - ----PDLYbON_EdGLO51N6 .; � °�" �p`I- �pl k�?Gl Con � O o^ o BUILDING FOOTPRINT N o �� . U ` ^ > 1k Lk ti 00 L 25.0 AC zo o z (222.46) 0 w Ir.I' M o RIDGE z z l v U N m J - I I z S 2 STORY — [� z (202.67Fs) BUILDING Z w AC U — h 6 4. — I CF.W. 1.4 G z o AC DRAWN P.A. CHECKED C.C. DATE 8/22/2019 SCALE JOB NO. SHEET GRADE ESTABLISHMENT AND HEIGHT LIMIT EXHIBIT ^ 0 0 3 OF SHEETS 49 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans REVISIONS BY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Auxilary Structure — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — Auxilary Structure — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — Auxilary Structure — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — Stringline — - - - - - - - - - - - Stringlin- - - - - - - - - - - - Stringline I I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I N II II II II II II II II II II II II �� w V II II 11 II II II II II II II II II r r m - II II II II II II II II II II II II y �\ � .` y r �I O N 'n JI II 11 II II II II II II II II II _ `I 11y If`IL II II II II ,' II II II II II II II II II II II II I ; - -� � � -� -, � - � -�, � I I K,� � G� �' i ^ � .� \1 III I� i1 =��_� tea,• \ \ n `i \ i \it, \n i �\ " / ij i/ i/i I _ /.;\ i — ---------- — — 7� II II IN t�i \i �� - (/ I � \ (Ex.) �iI �� Roof Below /�� I I I \� I / A/A i I, )/, / TiTC' " E , � J � ) J/ � ' BAD 00��i OF V I -22985, / �/ / I / ✓ //��. �,� �/� /� I , . , m ZZ Or �p Cy ' Sump P NcNMM/11, (E CRAWL (Ex.) Z SPACE CRAWL � �O I � � SPACE X M it (less than 6' High) (less than 6) - - — — — — — - STAIR i / �'�; STAIR I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � I I. . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I , , , , , , L-------------------------J PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN DRAWN P.A. KED LEGEND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED HOUSE c c C. Lower level 599 S Ft. DATE �l• 8/22/2019 First Floor 779 Sq. Ft. Second Floor 982 Sq. Ft. SCALE Conditioned space Unconditioned Space Total Living Space 2360 Sq. Ft. JOB NO. Garage 428 Sq. Ft. SHEET Total Living + Garage 2788 Sq. Ft. Areas of addition to existing house Lower Deck 295 Sq. Ft. (beyond ex. footprint). First Floor Deck 272 Sq. Ft. OF SHEETS 50 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans NORTH 0' 8' 16' o U AC \ SCALE: 1 "=8' \ \ NOTE. RECORD EASEMENTS ARE NOT PLOTTED IF ANY. \ z o \ \ U V1 AC _ 3q� BUILDING = �� (03° 1 U z lb (167.80NG) I \ A Cco (IS `O I 1 0 �� ab WALL THICKNESS pl �� ✓� n I I I I S 50 2 2 0 0 E 14 6 . 2 2 / UNKNOWN W \ % � ICI I _ a o2�S 77 CGNC. o FS, • \ 1 V� I I I 1 I I I I 01�(>�� n I AC U D = 3 4 9 4 7 p>� coNc. `'7 I I II II `2 L_ = 10 . 0 3 co c. q�S, I I I �2°0� LINE Z R = 15 0 0 0 u OF UPPER O� �� I I I I I I I I �, / / 3 AC CONC. FLOOR q�q� I I I I I I I I I 132 I I 1 I �QQ I // / / / / / COO CONC. n L o NQ P STRING LINE CGNC AC z Z S BUILDING Y I p° # P U p 209.00 UPPER FLOOR 8.4 200.49 MIDDLE FLOOR g a AC 192.32 LOWER FLOOR or `2 . CD � »apte Los F II� CQ CO LLJ (> 2ND L _ z Cu I� 1 1 Nv _�o 0 AVE. ti AC U cHIM. coN � I CONC. M 00 Cu NS — � 4 .I — — f CONCDNC. CVICINITY MAP — ni 06FS) NC. 194.15FS) ( S502200E 161 . 70 ) CuM I z OD u O Cu I \ U U C3 L2 25.0 AC 2: El 0 (22246) n J z — \ RIDGE z Cu W J - U u o (202.67FS) B O I L DING = AC �� +, 1.0 LEGEND p2`0 DESCRIPTION o _ (123.45) MEAS. ELEVATIONS `2 4.0 ( ) REC. BRG. & DIST. 50 I DECK q, # BRICK 25.0 WALL CF.W. 1.4 GUTTER BUILDING U PROPERTY LINE AC FENCE BENCH MARK b N.G. NATURAL GRADE P.P. POWER POLE LDS 9 LAND T� WM WATER METER �� p FINISH L RON MIEDEMA A *G.F. GARAGE FLOOR EXP. 9/30/19 ti CONC. CONCRETE 4653 ^� NO. Q F.S. FINISH SURFACE 9�F R� modem.. q-� M.H. MAN—HOLE o� CAL1F0 P PLANTER A.C. ASPHALT T.G. TOP—GRATE R d M SURVEYING INC . TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OWNER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BENCH MARK: ADDRESS OF PROJECT: RON MIEDEMA L.S. 4653 TRACEY AND ERICH FUNKE LOT 28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 673 LEAD AND TAG ELEVATION= 199.98 536 HAZEL 23016 LAKE FOREST DR. #409 CORONA DEL MAR, CA LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 (949) 858-2924 OFFICE JOB: 67-8 DATE: 6/19/17 (949) 858-3438 FAX RDMSURVEYING@COX.NET 151 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro•ect Plans REVISIONS nBY I I I I I I KEYNOTES �1 Existing walls to remain 2❑ ______ Existing walls to be demolished aRemove cabinets or shelves ® Remove existing doors and windows(Dashed) ❑5 Remove existing fixtures and appliances(Dashed) © Remove dropped ceiling at kichen ❑7 Keep areas of existing floor and deck: I I I I I I I I 1 AuxilaryStructure 1 �"� — - - - - - — •—• - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - - — — — — — — — — Strmghne U I � I � Deck above to remain I U Ln 00 N M I T _F - - - - - - - IIJ ^yV a o2 IIIfI III IIII IIII IIII II II c) Ex IIII IIII IIII ^ Guardrail II II II II II II ,-� O — — � UIL \ _ IIII IIII / IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII •�-- IIII v — _ 4z U L) � w ==1k1� =IkIK= 1M =�=_=1klk======1klk======11•IK======1kIK==1 I o IIIII II \ � �III II II II II II II —11tt- - - .III _ _ II II I I .� M � a III II ,x\ II II II II ERE ECK II II II II —II fi — Prs�a S![ tu,.e V Illy \IIII IIII �� I� IIII IIII IIII I g � III I, Remove Remove Remove Ex. Window ll 11 \ II II II II II II Ex. Doors II II Ex.Window11 II IIII II II II II II y II II II II II II II II 4'-z� II II II III II, II li II II \ \II II II II II II III - _ - II II to Remain --IL --n. --- �� III o I �� YNTHI Ex. 1 thick 11q I CHII DS ----9 Partition (remove) I� ' i t 9?e -A,� F Ex. 4x10 —Up 12 R. Btru ral ofeams N OFFJ�2E ,I -- -A II Remove IIME `I'�Y1 o II O -II Ex. Stair F.F. - 192.32' 41 II II II II II III O II I II II II II IIEx. —— —1 Fireplace Ex. II I _____IIII II II II II 36x28 I U U subpanel __-_ 11 11 11 11 Opening 1 W II I II II II II II I Q > c3 .,..I ------- I-�—I N Ex. Wood N Stair I Q I I� Con O < Ex. Raised Foundation [] C�3 Q � M 1 CRAWL SPACE 1 I I Ste CPnc. I Steps I II a a I ii I w - - — — — — — — — — —"— - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - I rn SQUARE FOOTAGE — — — — EXISTING HOUSE W C) W� Y-0" 3,_0„ Lower level 464 Sq. Ft. Setback setback First Floor 913 Sq. Ft. Second Floor 634 Sq. Ft. DRAWN Total Living Space 2011 Sq. Ft. CHECKED Attic 85 Sq. Ft. C.C. DATE Lower Deck 295 Sq. Ft. 8/22/2019 First Floor Deck 272 Sq. Ft. SCALE JOB NO. SHEET EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN / DEMOLITION PLAN DM 1 OF SHEETS 52 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans REVISIONS nBY I I I I I I KEYNOTES �1 Existing walls to remain 2❑ ______ Existing walls to be demolished aRemove cabinets or shelves ® Remove existing doors and windows(Dashed) ❑5 Remove existing fixtures and appliances(Dashed) © Remove dropped ceiling at kichen ❑7 Keep areas of existing floor and deck: I I I I I I I I I AuxilaryStt! cture I �"' - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Stringline - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - — U Remove portion Roof above Ex. deck and I Q� of ex. deck at nook to remain Ex. Post guardrail to remain N N r I� 00 T I — T7 —I T T 1— TT — I T IT-11 (,.) .... - - - - - I _ _ _ 11 h 11 , III I 4z U � qw Ex. 4x6 Structural 11 17-7 F - 1:: IT —I 7 TT —I 7 TT 7 F_ TT 7 7 TT I I � � W o 0 beams I I I I I— FF -+I— FF -+I— 'FI=�f—F�—1=FF -+I— Ex.Post .q C v � NO I IG O O C - - P S gS!E ture - c� I I I I I 11 I I I I 11 I I 11 I I I I CI yf� I$ R 14 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (Eng1psg4 31�idq§) 11 11 11 11 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I I I �", II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I I I 11= IL ---II— -Li — IL L _7T______7T-_____TT-___ G YNTHIA I I I v CHILDS Ex. 6x8 Structural G`229 I I I t1R� � 1 -- kdT ]E'N I Beams REN.nisns N UP13R. II II II II II II I II I I � --III II II II II II LWIING RO M N F.F. -200.49' I ----,-Jpu I I I II I I I I I I I W U rn -—%II ii ii i � - -mill II II II II II I Q ,� > ucl:3 I I I II � �-- � •� \' III a III II DN12R11 1 11 Ir I III 1 1 I I W II III / I ' --� + I 'z 'V N /� Cd i III I11 W {____� IIII W u A I IIII --�--__ i ENTRY Con v O II �•I 'L------ ---� C� O 01 NI Ir---, ,fi +--, I GUEST A4 II I I111 it 11 CARPORT _ 'LL ROOM I� �II 11 I 11 I —4 IIII �1 �� p1q 1111 BA� II I III Line of floor above Ij IF------- I------- -------- - - - - - -11=1- - - ----1�=�=== ___ ______ IIII i11ji I ' III �-----------------------------------�� Ex. Post r—CFI-------------------- —11i�1 I 1— ---------------------- -III I II O O II 11q I I — — — — — — — —��'— — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — - ------------------------------1 I �� O P O Beam '^ � W w Q 3'-0" 3'-0" Setback Setback DRAWN P.A. CHECKED C.C. DATE 8/22/2019 SCALE JOB NO. SHEET EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN / DEMOLITION PLAN DM2 OF SHEETS 153 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro•ect Plans REVISIONS nBY I I I I I I KEYNOTES �1 Existing walls to remain 2❑ ______ Existing walls to be demolished aRemove cabinets or shelves ® Remove existing doors and windows(Dashed) ❑5 Remove existing fixtures and appliances(Dashed) © Remove dropped ceiling at kichen I I ❑7 Keep areas of existing floor and deck: I I I I I I I I I AuxilaryStt! cture I �"' — - - - - - - - - - - - - •—• - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — Strmghne U I � I � � � N M 00 vI o vp 4z v Qw U 4) a I � Primate Structure Stringtine — — I U I Enclosed Attic I tiG YNT HIA� --------- ---- ----------- I CHII DS - - - - - ----- _ 1 �Il ,22III9 CLOSET T REN.11/5/15 CLOSET `p 1_------ I ___J I_ I I - -----II_, � � MASTER �4\� :___= N CNN --, BATH , , , II I I BEDROOM O F.F. =209.0' 1 I I t - ---� 1 Ex. Wall LZ $--4 II —r I I I to remain I Q V r0 I I III O �---- \ 1------- - - - I ~ If====3----------------- � •� ------1 �I I 4 N —————---HALL----- Ct BEDROOM 2 ' ' CLOSET I O U O a CLOSET II II --------------------------- L- ---------- ----------- I Enclosed Attic I F--1 �i ------------------------ I 0 A-, - ------ ----- --- ----- -- I - - - - - �l0 � U w Y-0" 3'-0" Setback Setback DRAWN P.A. CHECKED C.C. DATE 8/22/2019 SCALE JOB NO. SHEET EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN / DEMOLITION PLAN DM3 OF SHEETS ,S-4 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans REVISIONS BY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3'_0" D C B A 3'_0" A-ll A-10 A-10 A-10 Setback Setback AuxilaryStructure V - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Stringline - - - - - - — — - - — - - - - - -j 3'-1" 11'-]0'/2" 5'-91/2" 16-2" 3'-1" I Ln w 5'-51/4" 6-51/4" 3'-91h" 2'-0" 5'-111/4" 10'-23/4 cr IT11- - - -TII- - - 71I _T1I _T11- - - 7111 II II II II II II II II II II II II ^ � •� U � II II ° II II II II II II II II I� - Ex. Deck Above ..� Q II II II II II II II II II II II II LJ � � I�IL II II II II , II II II II II II II II II II II II �--+ C u , � Q w II II U m u 1111 rfl i"` rtL l4-fl— Iris fl-fl fl-II fl-II ','' W O [] r hI n II 101 U-1i � ° '[ •� m U G III I ' ILId ILId � Id I�Id 1-id- — ILId ILId I �--I � r 11 1 I � Irn Irn 1+-11— Irn Irn u 11 — i ii i�i Prima Structure Ex. Floor I1 11 rrt rri rri 4-11— Irrt rri—Floor rri rri � B �- E Sfrmgline — - A-I2 Above _. l�rl 1>-rl 1>-rl n-- - -- - I. i>-i�i Above—U-ili U-fl — . � Irn 1 � Irn Irn 1+-u— i 1 Irn Irn Irn � A-I z Re air-Eltyr termite ��,� ��,� !i,i Ex. Guardrail U Irn rrt rr rri Ir-n-da_age-as-nqje0ed. rri rri rri ii_Re 1acdecl litlig w+th�re i ii rri rri rri — rri rri rri rri Ex. Site Wall Jfl r-rl 44-+ - to Remain 1-Il -4-fl— o Iw 1 1 _ — �- = I I O l I - - -�= —r'1 I �S�D ARn'-� Irn lider rri 1 lru —tit- c — I I I v Y T4 T, 4 CHILDS N I II O II � II II II II t G 229Qy 1 EX. 91 OC I II II � II II II �'I aen.n/sns N CE 11 1 1 1 (EX.) GAME ROOM/ 1 1 AF12 ) EXERCISE ROOM — A l2 c N I j - I I F.FI I= 192.32' 1 1 11 K. Stair --� 1 BA loll �, 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 > W = II 11 II II II - _ c� M II 1 3 11 II II II II o 11 II II II II _' W U - I I II 1 II II II II II �^ q -1'-5" ex. CiX'• 1 ram+ ^ Dropped FIR I W 1 7-71/k'11 1 1 6-2" 1 1 3'-7"1 1 3'-9'/2" ceiling for I I I I I I `V 1.1 _ plumbing I I 1 1 • ESTI 1 o lines _ M 11 11 11 11 'f-�J 1(�11 ' _Closet - - - - - - JL - - - I� A.V. Cab. 1 1 5 New Tankless water heater N vs Ejector Ct M G Area of 3'-7'/2" 5'-4'/2" — i — AGI3 L — — — — Garage floor \ Q above \ Sump < Ex. Stair V I� Pump it Q I^ / Ex.Foundation (EX.) CRAWL Storage 7 (EX ) Ex. Foundation A- U 14R.@ 7"ea. SPACE 12T.@II"ea. UP CRAWL II = L4- - - - - SPACE I� 13- - - - - 2II 11 N I I� L- ^ - - _ II LDD- �- - - 4 7 II I A 13 3'-0' Setback to face of t — finish - - - - - - - - - - - - - I� 3'-0" I� (N.) STA RF �I to face of Setback Garage Above finish - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n T New Foundation I PROPOSED HOUSE 1 O Lower level 599 Sq. Ft. (+135) First Floor 779 Sq. Ft. (-134) Second Floor 982 Sq. Ft. (+348) DRAWN Total Living Space 2360 Sq. Ft. (+349) P.A. 3'-1" 33'-10" 3'-1" CHECKED I I I Garage 428 Sq. Ft. (+428) C.C. Total Living + Garage 2788 S Ft. +777 DATE g q• ( ) s/22/2oi9 ADi1 A�io ABio AAio Lower Deck 295 Sq. Ft. (+0) SCALE First Floor Deck 272 Sq. Ft. (+0) JOB NO. SHEET PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN A 1 OF SHEETS 155 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro•ect Plans REVISIONS nBY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3'-0" D C B A I 3'-0" Setback A-1I A-to A-t0 10 Setback 4"' — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - Ln 00 N Roof Above 26 I. II II II II IIas,88ded. 4z U Co Q w _ U Qj II I i i — ------------------------------------ I ,..1 W ° o L� Line of roof above I K I I I I77--��77��7��77((''I�� g O I I I I DIN, I I I cr, II I II II II A-12 Ex. wall at patio A-12 I 3'-01, U OI II II II II - - I II II II II 1 I I Iew sFurr out wall for 1 new doors II II II II II I = �� 11 _LI _IJ _I1 _________________ ___7F rr��rr__ ___rr___ \ tiv YNTHIA. k I I y CHILDS wL }+�,�irT(EX•) I i Ex. Beams I i I i I t l/yy 211219/f$($/ Ex wall - lilTC� r' �On/". ^l 1 `n N m 'f 7 11 I I I I 1 I 11 1 I I REN.Il/5/IS N �' I I I I I I I I I I I � /•� A-12 t °r 1 1 A-12 N 1 1 C✓ y�It,h�II 1= I .�.. O �VJ w �_ I DING ROI . p� II II II II oI I I I I I �C" 11 I I .I F. =200.491 I I I I I I in O � � 1 I II II II II W U Ex. IF .�� I I F.P. .• - `-ri>k= I d �. - ✓ I I W W Soffit I 1'-5" ex. rl `V 5� I I I I I I I I I I I I Q � Stor. I _ t• _1 o 10 I-�-- - - Plumbing W7 -v Nin Q Ex. wall I I chase O1 2.2,1 12'_4" 6'-41/2" 6'-51/2" ad 5'-0" 7'/a" 1 ! G G � Q1:13 ct A-l3 I (l` ) 15 a, Ex. wall v A-13 Con O V x v O 2-CAR ARAGE PDR __ ___ _ c�3 v O 21'-2" 3'_8" 3'_8" 1 5'_4" M G �y 1 14 = New floor � 1 14R.@ 7-9/32 e . 'Q above 12T.@ I V ea. Fn N U 14 DN 1 UP I p U vl 20'-7 13 1 2 m �+ 1 Clear 12 3 (N/� N •) I 1 - - -------- --------- ------- - 4 ENTRY 0 A-13 I 10 s F.F. =200.49 I ^ A-13 rj Glass Rail 3, 0„ 1 9 5 (see photo) °O Setback Fn to face of s 117 3'-0" finish 10 = Setback M to face of (N.) STAIR O8 finish f-�I I - 1 E` � Q � O I W ------ xw [� I a p �o 0 O I M M N I M Tn V] W w Steel overhang at a floor line (see photo) 10'-7" 10'-7" DRAWN 21'-2" 12'-8" P.A. 3'-l" 33'-10" Verify 3'-1" CHECKED C.C. DATE 8/22/2019 SCALE -11 -10 A-10 A-10 JOB NO. SHEET PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2 OF SHEETS so PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro•ect Plans REVISIONS nBY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3'-0" D C B A I T-0" Setback A-tI A-t0 A-t0 10 Setback 4"' — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - Ln 00 "01 1.-,) � 26 r U � Deck Below 0 - - - - - - - - - .. T _ _ - - _ Q� NM II - - -7 W Q o _ I I _ N O P" 6-5„ 8'-5" 4'-3" 2'-9" — —6,_0„_ _ — _ 6-0„ I N U A-12 (Ex.) Line of soffit I A-12 _✓1 Roof Below below U I I 0 A BB I tiG YNT14TA C, CHILDS MASTER h BEDROOM 2 �� Y BEDROOM I I ❑ O �j 1kn AUNDR �N.n 5 5 �N/1 U I I Stacked - - - ____ ______ 00 I W/D _ - I N o K .. --- --- -- ---- ----- M I r ' TS 06'-1" C zs DD Q C3 -11 /z 5'-0 3-7 3 ��- a12 �_ 77777 O\ Ll 22 i 2a -- CLOSET - •^I $..� F-I 30x30 • 20 I �� I Attic - N showCe. Le Access [5A T I"�I� O LEI ^ �I N G EE I ct M - � Q A-13 a I e MASTER � HER I HALL t\-" - I `^ M A-13 Con N x v' 209.48' `° y 1 °° I 0` F' 13ATH CLOS. iv O a � 4'- 1, 6'-7' 1I 3'-7'h" 3'-41h" _ 5' 4'h" 3'-71/2" M O 31 " U o � v N ------ DN 14T@I1"ea. m 1 — lfr 14 1 12R @ 7-9/32 ea. 60 = v Fn Fn 12 3 7 H _ I 11 0 4 o Open to I 10 ^ g ^ Below O I n A-13 I I o Setback 9 6 Fn to face of U I finish EDROPM 1 8 1 117 1 3'-0" p[ I Setback ` H 3 i 1� w I M to face of '8 °° o o STAIR finish Q Z Desk Q © I I N V1 I--I In I o ❑ x 0 A 0 va I o � ° 0 , Entry Roof below 4'-5" 3'-3" L 2'-11" 6'-2" 1'-9'h" 7-8" 10'-10'/2" 2'-V/2" DRAWN 21'-2" 12'-8" P.A. 33'-10" Verify CHECKED C.C. DATE 8/22/2019 SCALE -11 -10 -10 A-10 JOB NO. SHEET PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A3 OF SHEETS 57 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans REVISIONS BY 96ti 1�2 0 I O 17>S O 176 °0 O I I O I I I �80 I CD_T- 180 I O N 117, 0 C B A I 3' 0" ^ I C;,, 111 set S tt to to Setback ` \1 �9J 4"' �. (� O S S9 — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - - ° — ' J 18� — ,— — — cJ J LC 1 (,7 o I I O !/ .61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -- ---- -- ---- -•- � i D.S. r/I cp v Q� X r — Existing Deck Belo N E I 1 8 v �J O — — — _ _ _ II UPPER DECK U Ca w Osz6sC� U ; w o 0 7 a I' I I II II I J r- � � ° �� _ A-12 v� �^ �O xisting Lower Roofm emain ( A-12 9� I E.G. 191.63 Q f(IJ E.G. 191.62'` r \ Ht.Limit ) 220.85' O �, I Ht.Limit 220.62' \ LINE v CJ I I II Top of Roof 218.19' Top of Roof 218.19' BUILDING Gutter .s 192 12ND STORY AR� A\ � I I I CHII�DS` I III G 9 1 9 �9 191 50F ) I t tt 1"A. �� kn a REN.1115/15 F 2 6 Li I Q cn \\ x \ II o I I I IJ- Ln m I �` , I = New R of II o I 0� li o o d I IF xisting RIDGE U �U cJ S II Ln himney I0 (223.16) W C� i ° h --i eny 11 E.G. 200.13'� I E.G. 196.29' Ht.Limit-229.13' Q II I D G Ht.Limit 225.29' w �� O Ridge 225.23' n/c I I D L E Rld Ridge 225.23' W 200 z o� N �1 > 0 AG 3 � Q ri I � z o V hh"""11 O II o o it w � O c� O o N `� 0 M ,179 3 11 N (O a �"{ kn U - b - --- - -- - -- - V r ho (1 � - 0 - D - O 9 8 > U m o �� O O U �ro� -i IN O �j QNew of U I O A-13 J OZ I p7 N Z J Y 3'-0" O> >O O a O Q Z Siback I SLOPE:7.5:12 SLOPE:7.5:12 N U 99 \` �� cJ` CDI —I —Or9 �I - -U - - - ��- - - I OJ 99 ;Jebac zOLA\ - - - - — oD.S. - D. .o � lop LL O O O ON >s QW O 6 CON No T.0.R. °`SJ �J 20° 9 F I z � " S o CONC. (208.44) — — — — — - - — CONC. a y y Metal Flat Roof at Lip CONC. CONC. _ CONC. N O O 3 8 O E Entry Bel�� O O CONC. CONC. CC O°O c� CONC. ��O �J CONC. �O/ �O� CONC. P DRAWN S //, S S S A. CHECKED CONC. 0) � J 1 '� Tp J I ��F J J CONC. C.C. co `� CONC. F F . DATE C CONC. 0 Ll CONC. 8/22/2019 CONC. CONC. � " CONC. SCALE -11 -10 -lo -to 0 Lj JOB NO. � N °° Q9 �'P° ° ° SHEET �j99PROPOSED ROOF PLAN S�� °°� Q °��QO s�'��JCJ �T� >9T° 6�T°9S`J A4 TC U OF SHEETS 52 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans loon REVISIONS BY 5/12 pitch ) main roof < Standing-Seam Metal Roof 12 Stone 12 Ex. Brick Veneer over 5 7 1/ 2" \— 217.08' Top Plate Top Plate 217.08' — _ 217.08' Top Plate _ Top Plate 217.08' —\ Smooth White Stucco ) Ex. Chimney 0o Ex. Roof Steel W Ln Do 209.48' FF \ FF 209.48' 209.48' FF FX. FX. FX. FF 209.48' v n - - _ — - - — - (3) Recessed lights ssed g s c below u El [I Ex. Guardrail — o — — - m o r Stam rade Stain Grade )— Wood Gate -z N U . . . Wood Gate — -- N 200.49' FF 200.49' 200.49' F _ — _ - LL FX. LFjX FF 200.49' PON Stain Grade Stone veneer Ex. Deck Wood Garage Door Ex. Post G YNTHIA I V CHILDS Ex. Guardrail Ex. Stairs < foundation wall beyond I t 229 � � V 192.32' FF FF 192.3T 192.32' FF L I FF 192.32' RF" 1115115 N Ex. Deck N N � LEFT SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION FRONT WET ELEVATION S � ) (WEST)) w � U N Q Standing-Seam w w Metal Roof SIC 12 Q a 5 217.08' Top Plate Top Plate 217.08' 217.08' Top Plate Top Plate 217.08' x Ex. Roof 209.48' FF FX. FX. / EX. \ FF 209.48' 209.48' FF i FF 209.48' �{ —. - �J (3)Recessed lightsbelow ow -- Ex.post I M (— Stone Veneer over I, Ex \ . Guardrail III ~ Ex:Brick rT, I \y� I 200.49' FF — NFX �F-X. L------- [A 200.49' 200.49' FF EU FF 200.49IT m DRAWN Ex. GradeProfile of L P A Ex. Deck CHECKED i� E P t N N _ . . .. .. E x. Gate iv CC DATE Ex. Guardrail 8/22/2019 ----- --- ---- --- ----' -- SCALE 192.32' FF FF 192.32' 192.32' FF FF 192.32' Ex. Deck JOB NO. SHEET RIGHT SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION REAR (EAST) ELEVATION SH 8 OF SHEETS PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans 229.23 REVISIONS BY lA 228.42 — — — — — — — — — 2A I — LEGEND I 224.69'ridge \ 225.23' ry�h^� Existing construction: � New construction: 12 I 5 I I I I I Platte I I I Ex. Wall to remain \ Extend ex.wall height Raised Floor for I to 8'-1" Utilities I 4_J I New window 00 STAIR BATH Bedroom 2 I Ex. roof to remain New roof at entry Ex. 2x floor I S� Q.j Fq (metal) I p sheathing to remain I V 00 slope 1/2:12 I 209.48'Upper Floor n N can . � `4 > c' I I New soffit framing O ep L) o I Ex. 6x8 Ex. post&beam floorJ'oists I New soffit& _ U o °' plumbing chase i Ex. deck framing M U Q 11 U a) N o 00 00 :S d E TR (Ex.) Living Room I (Ex.) Deck ct N o Ex. Guardrail '^� PDR. Ex. 2x floor sheathing I S.' r- U ti� I ati to remain N zC/, 200.49 Middle Floor rr�ll — � V 5- I Ex. 4x10 floor joists ex. post&beam New foundation 6x8 I ��h� Ex. wall Ex. Foundation ` z IA I IEx guardrail YNTH(ex.) Game Room � (Ex.) Deck IA� y CHIL S 2_ I eg- PXNex. deck framing1.IUS/IS 192.32 Lower Floor pF I---------------------------------- /N I V New Ex. foundation piers .+ Foundation Ex. Foundation ;3 SECTION A y�q7o h Q cj 5 NQ nti Q ct I � � 225.23' �� ct I O U ct 12 $�., Q I I I I . ti5' op Plate Ex. Wall to remain Extend ex.wall height Raised Floor for I I to 8'-1" Utilities New window BATH Bedroom 2 m STAIR I Ex. roof to remain 50 New roof at entry I Ex. 2x floor I (metal) Glass 16x8 I sheathing to remain slope Guardrail I I 1/2:12 I 209.48 Upper Floor _ I I New soffit framing C I I � O N I I Ex. 6x8 floor joists I Ex. post&beam ; m Stain grade I I Ex. deck framing wood treads 60 with open risers (<4" gap) PDR. I (Ex.) Living Room I (Ex.) Deck at street level Ex. Guardrail o I k I Ex. 2x floor sheathing Center steel I �.S I to remain stringer tiW 200.49 Middle Floor DRAWN P.A. `_� CHECKED o Ex. 4x10 floor joists I ex. post&beam C.C. New foundation 6x8 Ex. wall DATE I i' wall I 1° I I Ex guardrail � 8/22/2019 `° I M 11 (Ex.) Game Room I � (Ex.) Deck I SCALE Closed risers ex. deck framing at lower level CLO. \ I b^ I JOB NO. I 192.32 Lower Floor I------------------------------------i I SHEET I � Ex. foundation piers New Foundation Ex. Foundation ; 0 \ I ,� A 9 SECTION B I h \ OF SHEETS 00 PA201 -042 Attachment No. PC 6 - Pro'ect Plans p, REVISIONS BY tiG tiryG ti LEGEND Existing construction: I _ _ 12 225.23' 5 1 \ New construction: D< New roof framing \ o^ ti �5 op Plate b� Platte — I I I New wall framing New wall framing Ex.Wall to remain and window I I I Extend ex. wall height to 8'-1" -J Raised Floor for Utilities Q� New window �--a 0 Bedroom3 Her Closet Laundry 00 v, New floor framing ( I Ex. roof to remain Ex. 2x floor Cq � sheathing to remain �O M I I 2 2 I � co 209.48'Upper Floor , New soffit framing tq U New wall framing I I Ex. 6x8 floor joists Ex. post& beam and garage door New Beams I r 1 ro Ex. Wall Ex. deck framing mV..1 0 00 r. I I I I I � .� ,� New Slab on grade I = Garage I I (Ex.) Living Room (Ex.) Dec `° N p Ex. Guardrail r7 p� New Floor I q to r ^5 I Ex. 2x floor sheathing r c emain V G ex. post&beam I I I Ex.4x10 floor joists AR I I Ex. wall Ex. wall tiG yNTHI N Ex. foundation I I N CHILDS Ex. grade Ex guardrail 1 ( �),Game Room I (Ex.) Deck I ^� I ex. deck framing REN.wens New Foundation I XCI � I 192.32 Lower Floor N New footing i i I Ex. Foundation SECTION C 1 225. 3' \ Q I 1 12 I \ \ \ O U Q New roof framing i I \ \ 1 C�3Li Q Eave 217.71' I ^p, \ — L~h op Plate I I I � � h New wall framing New wall framing < Ex. Wall to remain and window Extend ex. wall height to 8'-1" Raised Floor for to 8'-1" Utilities 00 0 Bath 3 W.C. I M. Bath 1 M. Bedroom New window Ex. roof to remain New floor framing Ex.2x floor 1 1 sheathing to remain I I L 209.48 Upper Floor Z New soffit framing New wall framing I I Ex. 6x8 floor joists Ex.post&beam and garage door New Beams m M I Ex. WallCA 1 m w I I I Ex. floor framing a m New Slab on grade I Garage I I (Ex.) Kitchen I (Ex.) Dining Remove portion of m o I q^ I Ex. 2x floor sheathing I�Ex. Guardrail 1qq 1 to remain DRAWN o I � ,qq 200.49 Middle Floor P.A. — — — — — — CHECKED post&beam C.C. \ \ Ex. 4x10 floor joists � I ex. p DATE Ex. foundation Ex.Foundafi 1 \ \ New window 8 22 2019 \ I Ex guardrail r (Ex.) Office (Ex.) Deck `° SCALE I \ \ \ �gN00 i ex. deck framing JOB NO. \ 192.32 Lower Floor I------------------------------------1 SHEET � I I New Foundation Ex. Foundation � � ' i ��` A10 SECTION D OF SHEETS �1 Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received After Deadline Funks Residence Variance(PA2018-042) December 5, 2019, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2 Funke Variance (PA2018-042) This is a very strange report in that it spends considerable time explaining how the existing development is non-conforming because it violates the City's rear yard setback policy, based in this area on a stringline rule, then in Table 1 on handwritten page 9 appears to the existing rear setback of"<95 feet" (I think it means '595 feet) conforms easily to the 10 foot rear setback requirement. Regarding the Variance I sympathize with the Funke's dilemma, but I fail to see what the stringline arguments have to do with their variance request. According to the "Applicant's Justification" in Attachment PC 3 (page 35), the request to intrude into the required 5-foot front setback is entirely due to a wish to retain an interior wall of the existing house. The house was built long before Newport Beach had its stringline rule for rear setbacks, and was presumably not influenced by it (although its position may have been influenced by other rules prohibiting construction on slopes that may have existed at the time). The applicant would be making the identical request for the identical reason if they owned a comparable home on a completely level lot. This is not about a peculiarity of the land, but a peculiarity of the existing house, and the hardship claimed is entirely an economic one: given the layout of the house, it is less expensive to deviate from the code than to comply with it. I suspect neither of those can be used for granting a variance from the generally-applicable development regulations. As an example of the normal understanding of the findings necessary to grant a zoning variance in California, Marin County has fewer variance requirements than Newport Beach. Their Variance Fact Sheet says: "Review of a proposed variance must be limited solely to the physical circumstances of the property. The standard of hardship with regard to applications for variances relates to the property, not to the person who owns it or the location of existing structures on the property. Financial hardship, community benefit, neighbor's approval, or the worthiness of the project are not considerations in determining whether to approve a variance." Regarding Alternatives According to page 9, the applicant is asking to add the garage so that they can legally enlarge the floor area of the existing home by more than 10 percent (as it is currently restricted by Section 20.38.060.A.1.b). It would be interesting to know if the garage is being built for that purpose, alone, or if it will actually be used for storing vehicles. Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received After Deadline Funks Residence Variance(PA2018-042) While staff has limited authority to approve intrusions into the front setback, I believe that as an alternative to asking the Planning Commission for a variance, City staff(and the Commission) has much more latitude to honor the setback and alter the garage dimensions, instead, through a modification permit. The City's residential garage dimension standards appear in Section 20.40.090.A.1. A deviation of any amount could apparently be granted through a modification permit per Section 20.52.050.B.3.d. Staff suggests at the top of page 13 that an 18-foot garage depth "would reduce the practical usefulness of the proposed garage," which is certainly true, although per Section 20.40.090.A.1, a 19-foot depth would be acceptable in Newport Beach if the 40-foot wide lot were 0.01 feet narrower. The same modification permit could be used to reduce the 5-foot setback by 10%, allowing a ''/2 foot intrusion instead of the 2 feet proposed. According to the drawing on page 56, 1 believe that would result in a garage with "18' 7" clear." The findings for a modification permit (Section 20.52.050.E) would be much easier to make than those for a variance (Section 20.52.090.F). As to the other alternative suggested by staff, on page 13, for granting a variance for the garage, only, and requiring the rooms above to honor the setback, I am unable to understand why that would force the garage's ceiling to be too low to be practical. Nothing in Figure 3 indicates to me why the floors of the rooms above couldn't just as easily be raised, preserving, or even enhancing, the height of the garage. Regarding the Stringlines The discussion of stringlines in the report, and the footnote on page 12 indicating ""Buildable Area" in this instance does not refer to the Zoning Code definition of buildable area," points up an obvious and serious deficiency in our Zoning Code (Title 20 of the NBMC). Apparently a policy added to the General Plan in 2006 was never implemented in the Code. I would suggest the Commission consider using its authority under Section 20.66.020.B to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to implement the stringline policy, as has already been done for lots in the Coastal Zone in Section 21.28.50.0 of our Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. As to the current policy for areas outside the Coastal Zone, I do not know where it is written down, and I am unable to understand its application to the present property as purportedly shown in Figure 2 on page 8. As indicated in the attached copy, I would find either of the two lines labeled "Alternative 1" and "Alternative 2" more explainable than what the staff report identifies as the "Principal Stringline." The latter is drawn diagonally from an exterior corner on the lower building to an interior corner on the lower property. Since the two corner situations are essentially mirror images of each other, I find it hard to image a rule that dictate choosing one type of corner for the top property and a different type for the bottom one. Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received After Deadline Funks Residence Variance(PA2018-042) r nwcrs if+.Ctv�mera . -42 }nc,t cmr Principal � . 5tringline �. . .�, . ,j ccessory 5tringline 6 - ��-YYL.Ier n,y4-•q t A rnative 2 .. .� . . . i Alternative 1 Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received After Deadline Funks Residence Variance(PA2018-042) December 5, 2019, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2 Funke Variance (PA2018-042) This is a very strange report in that it spends considerable time explaining how the existing development is non-conforming because it violates the City's rear yard setback policy, based in this area on a stringline rule, then in Table 1 on handwritten page 9 appears to the existing rear setback of"<95 feet" (I think it means '595 feet) conforms easily to the 10 foot rear setback requirement. Regarding the Variance I sympathize with the Funke's dilemma, but I fail to see what the stringline arguments have to do with their variance request. According to the "Applicant's Justification" in Attachment PC 3 (page 35), the request to intrude into the required 5-foot front setback is entirely due to a wish to retain an interior wall of the existing house. The house was built long before Newport Beach had its stringline rule for rear setbacks, and was presumably not influenced by it (although its position may have been influenced by other rules prohibiting construction on slopes that may have existed at the time). The applicant would be making the identical request for the identical reason if they owned a comparable home on a completely level lot. This is not about a peculiarity of the land, but a peculiarity of the existing house, and the hardship claimed is entirely an economic one: given the layout of the house, it is less expensive to deviate from the code than to comply with it. I suspect neither of those can be used for granting a variance from the generally-applicable development regulations. As an example of the normal understanding of the findings necessary to grant a zoning variance in California, Marin County has fewer variance requirements than Newport Beach. Their Variance Fact Sheet says: "Review of a proposed variance must be limited solely to the physical circumstances of the property. The standard of hardship with regard to applications for variances relates to the property, not to the person who owns it or the location of existing structures on the property. Financial hardship, community benefit, neighbor's approval, or the worthiness of the project are not considerations in determining whether to approve a variance." Regarding Alternatives According to page 9, the applicant is asking to add the garage so that they can legally enlarge the floor area of the existing home by more than 10 percent (as it is currently restricted by Section 20.38.060.A.1.b). It would be interesting to know if the garage is being built for that purpose, alone, or if it will actually be used for storing vehicles. Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received After Deadline Funks Residence Variance(PA2018-042) While staff has limited authority to approve intrusions into the front setback, I believe that as an alternative to asking the Planning Commission for a variance, City staff(and the Commission) has much more latitude to honor the setback and alter the garage dimensions, instead, through a modification permit. The City's residential garage dimension standards appear in Section 20.40.090.A.1. A deviation of any amount could apparently be granted through a modification permit per Section 20.52.050.B.3.d. Staff suggests at the top of page 13 that an 18-foot garage depth "would reduce the practical usefulness of the proposed garage," which is certainly true, although per Section 20.40.090.A.1, a 19-foot depth would be acceptable in Newport Beach if the 40-foot wide lot were 0.01 feet narrower. The same modification permit could be used to reduce the 5-foot setback by 10%, allowing a ''/2 foot intrusion instead of the 2 feet proposed. According to the drawing on page 56, 1 believe that would result in a garage with "18' 7" clear." The findings for a modification permit (Section 20.52.050.E) would be much easier to make than those for a variance (Section 20.52.090.F). As to the other alternative suggested by staff, on page 13, for granting a variance for the garage, only, and requiring the rooms above to honor the setback, I am unable to understand why that would force the garage's ceiling to be too low to be practical. Nothing in Figure 3 indicates to me why the floors of the rooms above couldn't just as easily be raised, preserving, or even enhancing, the height of the garage. Regarding the Stringlines The discussion of stringlines in the report, and the footnote on page 12 indicating ""Buildable Area" in this instance does not refer to the Zoning Code definition of buildable area," points up an obvious and serious deficiency in our Zoning Code (Title 20 of the NBMC). Apparently a policy added to the General Plan in 2006 was never implemented in the Code. I would suggest the Commission consider using its authority under Section 20.66.020.B to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to implement the stringline policy, as has already been done for lots in the Coastal Zone in Section 21.28.50.0 of our Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. As to the current policy for areas outside the Coastal Zone, I do not know where it is written down, and I am unable to understand its application to the present property as purportedly shown in Figure 2 on page 8. As indicated in the attached copy, I would find either of the two lines labeled "Alternative 1" and "Alternative 2" more explainable than what the staff report identifies as the "Principal Stringline." The latter is drawn diagonally from an exterior corner on the lower building to an interior corner on the lower property. Since the two corner situations are essentially mirror images of each other, I find it hard to image a rule that dictate choosing one type of corner for the top property and a different type for the bottom one. Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.2a Additional Materials Received After Deadline Funks Residence Variance(PA2018-042) r nwcrs if+.Ctv�mera . -42 }nc,t cmr Principal � . 5tringline �. . .�, . ,j ccessory 5tringline 6 - ��-YYL.Ier n,y4-•q t A rnative 2 .. .� . . . i Alternative 1 Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funke Variance(PA2018-042) Po' F n FunkeVariance u z cq4 FpnN�P 536 Hazel Drive Planning Commission Public Hearing December 5, zosg Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funks Variance(PA2018-042) Apo 7o i.,.•Sy, � n A ` ! et% \ ,. r 1 Nt _ �° Subject Propertyf ' Vicinity Map J J� � s� loa '3. v Community Development Department- Planning Division 2 Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funke Variance(PA2018-042) • Built in 1950s • 1988 Modification Permit • Garage encroachment Background • Objectives of Applicant : • Compliant garage • Modernize • Add square footage • Maintain natural canyon Community Development Department- Planning Division Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funks Variance(PA2018-042) �F v Existing Residence Community Development Department- Planning Division 4 Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funks Variance(PA2018-042) Property Line Proposed --CAR GAlt '--------------- i I Project fAr /f I _ (N.) 'S TAIR I H F. .TI • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ENO F_ . 2' Encroachment 5' FYSB Hazel Drive Community Development Department- Planning Division Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funks Variance(PA2018-042) c AT W H NDAi.EL a GOIbiFL!GTION AT 390 � (S 4U WALL TH"M E55 ° owwoxry _ conc. f o —._ 7, Principal a� � � ' • • Stringline P 'I Acc so Proposed Project Q °°N� Stri n I i n _ =o ^ 1O5 y' W O u °. _ `� INN a V �'O w # a o _ �E1{ _ qll TUU v SZ V �P�5 u oNc. o�sc Co c ,ov4.isrs (S 22 OO E 161.70 ) $ 4. aoi �y4G l O ; l` U z Community Development Department- Planning Division •1 Y } , 1 CP - Example Nearest Corner, ,. Stringline s, 0000y' P 17 Principal Structure Stringling z Near S r. Nearest Cord Example11 _ Stringline � ►: Y. e. d'. Principal Structure Stringline �s Nearest Corn-6r I r I Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funks Variance(PA2018-042) a a J $ A a FROMM NM WNWONIGTION u AT IW tK= 8 (16'7 ww W� THICM NE56 SJO. UNKNOWN _ J CONC. O —_ — 8 D= J R= Justification Q o+ u.orra. # SF 353,-1 Principal 6d� Buildable Area/Depth No Stringli ra 5 n a 9�iRIN�61-OET1n� I e \ o o J siw m t► F' rn z 1 q N o Z ys P $ w -40 feet (Ss 22'00"E 161.70') L 0 a = _ � I Community Development Department- Planning Division 7 t + •� -December 5, g . / � ' J7 J77 �-;� � l ',� , • Item No.3a Ad resented At Meeting °=.L _._� 7r. n g S ,,. ..,� ` \�. ' P • lance(PA2018-042) If ., 71 � Extent of Existing Development 10 \ • D •� � \ ,may - -. �• ¢ Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funke Variance(PA2018-042) • Conduct a public hearing Recommended • Find exempt from CEQA Action • Approve Variance No . VA2018 - 002 Community Development Department- Planning Division 11 Planning Commission-December 5,2019 Item No.3a Additional Materials Presented At Meeting Funks Variance(PA2018-042) ■ For moreQuestions .? information Contact Westmoreland,Liz Assistant Planner 949-644-3234 . . www.newportbeachca.gov Community Development Department- Planning Division 12