HomeMy WebLinkAboutZA2012-012 Brown Residence ModificationRESOLUTION NO. ZA2012 -012
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MODIFICATION
PERMIT NO. MD2012 -002 FOR A 50% ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING 1,910 SQUARE -FOOT, NONCONFORMING SINGLE -
FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 1706 MIRAMAR DRIVE
(PA2012 -006)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by John and Kathleen Brown, with respect to property located at
1706 Miramar Drive, and legally described as PCL 1 , Block K, LLA 2009 -004 requesting
approval of a Modification Permit.
2. The applicant proposes a 50% addition (954 square feet) to an existing 1,910 square -
foot, nonconforming single - family dwelling. The Zoning Code limits the addition to 10% of
the existing floor area of the structure because the dimensions of the existing two -car
garage (19 feet 4 inches by 22 feet 10 inches) are less than the minimum required by
Code (20 feet by 20 feet).
3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District
and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached
(RS -D).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone in the categorical exclusion zone.
The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single Unit Residential Detached - (10.0 - 19.9
DU /AC) (RSD -C).
5. A public hearing was held on March 14, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of
the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1
(Existing Facilities).
2. Class 1 provides for additions to existing structures provided that the addition
will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet; and the project is
in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 2012 -012
Pape 2 of 6
maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which
the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.52.050 E. (Required Findings, Modification Permits) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), the following findings and facts in support of the
finding for a Modification Permit are set forth:
Finding:
A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the
neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The existing two -story single -unit dwelling is nonconforming as the residence encroaches
one foot into the required four -foot westerly side setback, the garage encroaches 8
inches into the four -foot westerly side setback and the interior width dimension of the
garage (19 feet, 4 inches) is less than the minimum required by the Zoning Code (20
feet).
2. The deviation from the Zoning Code requested through this application is compatible with
the characteristics of the surrounding properties. There are lots in the area with required
3 -foot setbacks, and properties developed with similar nonconforming structures in
regards to substandard parking space dimensions. Many of the dwelling units in this area
were constructed at a time when the Zoning Code did not specify dimension
requirements for garages or at a time when the required minimum dimensions of parking
space were similar or the same as the subject garage.
3. The applicant is proposing a 50- percent addition to the existing structure. The proposed
addition will comply with all of the development standards, including floor area, height,
and setbacks, and will not intensify or alter the existing nonconformities. The resulting
structure will be 2,864 square feet and similar in character and size to developments
located in the neighborhood.
Finding:
B. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with
the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical
hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique characteristics of the
structure in that the substandard width dimension of the garage necessitates the
Tmplt: 1 211 512 01 1
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 2012 -012
Pape 3 of 6
approval of a modification permit pursuant to 20.38.050 A.2 (Nonconforming Parking)
to allow an addition greater than 10 percent of the existing floor area of the structure.
2. Zoning Code regulations allow additions up to 50- percent of the gross floor area of an
existing structure within any 10 year period for structures with nonconforming setbacks.
Therefore, if the setback encroachments were the only nonconforming element of the
existing structure, the proposed project would not require approval of a modification
permit and would be allowed by right.
3. Given the design of the existing structure, bringing the garage into conformance is
infeasible without significantly expanding the scope of the project.
4. The Zoning Code specifies minimum interior dimensions for parking space, which vary
by lot width. Although, the existing garage is nonconforming in regards to the minimum
width dimension required for lots greater than 40 feet wide, it is consistent with the
width requirements for garages on lots less than 40 feet wide and still provides two
useable garage spaces. Thereby, the existing nonconforming garage meets the intent
of the Zoning Code by providing adequate parking but is deficient as to meeting the
minimum width requirement. Approval of the Modification Permit to allow the 50-
percent addition is reasonable given the use of the structure.
Finding:
C. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s)
of the property and /or structure, and /or characteristics of the use.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The existing two -car garage at the subject property was in compliance with the Zoning
Code at the time of original construction. However, as a result of amendments to the
Zoning Code and a lot line adjustment, the garage is now substandard in size in
regards to width, but does not preclude the use of two parking spaces.
Finding:
D. There are no alternatives to the Modification Permit that could provide similar benefits to
the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the
neighborhood, or to the general public.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The alternatives would require that the applicant bring the garage into conformance by
expanding the scope of the project or requesting a Variance for a setback
encroachment.
Tmplt: 1 211 512 01 1
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 2012 -012
Pape 4 of 6
2. Approval of the Modification Permit allows the applicant to the continued use of a two -
car garage even though the width of the garage does not meet Zoning Code
requirements for lots greater than 40 feet wide.
Finding
E. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or
welfare to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood; or the City,
or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions
of this Zoning Code.
Fact in Support of Finding
1. Though the width of the two -car garage will be less the minimum required by the
Zoning Code it will not be so deficient to preclude the use of two parking spaces.
2. The project will not increase the nonconforming status once complete and will comply
with all other provisions of the R -1 Zoning District.
3. The existing nonconforming garage has not proven to be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood.
4. The proposed gross square footage of the structure is less than the maximum square
footage allowed by the Zoning Code and is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood as well as similar land uses throughout the City.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves PA2012 -006 for
MD2012 -002, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTE131 THIS 14" DAY OF MARCH, 2012.
M
Tmplt: 1
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 2012 -012
Pape 5 of 6
I ON 001141dv_1%
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division Conditions
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. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the approval date, as
specified in Section 20.93.050 (A) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Prior to the
expiration date of this approval, an extension may be approved in accordance with
Section 20.93.050 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Requests for an extension
must be in writing.
Buildinq Division Conditions
3. The project is subject to liquefaction and a geotechnical study with foundation
recommendations is required prior to the submittal of building permits.
Public Works Conditions
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
5. Per City Council Policy L -18, Section B, "Non- permeable parkway surfacing within the
area between the street curb and sidewalk for decorative (non - pedestrian purposes),
installed at grade, not to exceed 25% of the parkway area (back of curb and
sidewalk)..." Therefore, 75% of the existing private, non - standard improvements
within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements
into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed and
replaced with ground covering or lawn. Any portion of the brick pavers to remain shall
be reconstructed, if damaged, and will require the property owner to enter into an
encroachment agreement.
6. The following items will require an Encroachment Agreement if they are to remain:
a.) Existing white picket fence along the entire Miramar Drive frontage, as it
encroaches one foot into the Miramar Drive public right -of -way. Maximum height of
encroachment shall be 36 inches. Any encroachments exceeding 36 inches in height
shall be removed (ie. the existing trellis).
b.) Brick pavers which encroach past the property line and into the alley.
Tmplt: 1 211 512 01 1
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 2012 -012
Pape 6 of 6
Reconstruct the existing broken and /or otherwise damaged sidewalk, concrete curb
and gutter along the Miramar Drive frontage.
7. Reconstruct the existing broken and /or otherwise damaged alley pavement.
8. All above ground improvements shall stay clear of the alley setback.
9. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way.
10. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by
the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could
be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
11. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
12. The two existing street trees along the Miramar Drive frontage shall be protected in
place. Unauthorized tree removal(s) will trigger substantial penalties for all of the
parties involved.
13. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees,
and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages,
actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and
expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of
every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly
or indirectly) to City's approval of the Brown Addition including, but not limited to, the
PA2012 -006 for MD2012 -002. 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.
Tmplt: 1 211 512 01 1