HomeMy WebLinkAboutMegonigal Residence 2333 Pacific DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
April 3, 2008 Meeting
Agenda Item 5
SUBJECT: Megonigal Residence (PA2007 -133)
2333 Pacific Drive
• Variance No. 2007 -001
• Modification No. 2007 -080
APPLICANT: David R. Olson, Architect
PLANNER: Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner
(949) 644 -3233, rbunimOcitv.newport- beach.ca.us
The Planning Department has an application on file for a variance to exceed the height
limit and modification permit for encroachment into the required front yard setback for a
new, three -story single - family dwelling proposed for a vacant property at 2333 Pacific
Drive. This presents a number of issues not only relating to the variance and
modifications, but the proposed project's consistency with the General Plan and the
Local Coastal Program. The Planning Department is seeking direction from the
Planning Commission before bringing the project back for Planning Commission action
on the application.
Project Setting
The project site is located on the bluff (southerly) side of Pacific Drive at the comer of
Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. Most lots on the bluff side of Pacific Drive are
through -lots extending down to Bayside Drive; however, the project site only extends
approximately half the distance to Bayside Drive where it abuts two lots that cover the
remainder of the slope down to Bayside Drive (See the Vicinity Map). The property is
approximately 4,412 square feet in area with a pentagonal shape.
The topography of the lot is sloping from Pacific Drive at an elevation of approximately
72.5 feet above mean sea level down to the rear property line at approximately 25 feet
above mean sea level. (See Exhibit No. 2 for proposed project plans for a topography
survey with elevations)
The property is located on a coastal bluff adjacent to a residence to the west, two
homes adjacent to Bayside drive to the south, a park to the east, and the intersection of
Pacific Drive and Begonia Drive to the north where more residential property exists
across the street. The lot is currently undeveloped and vacant.
Megonigal Residence
April 3, 2008
Page 2
Pr_olect Description
The proposed project includes the construction of a new, three -story, single - family
dwelling with a total floor area of 3,717 square feet, which includes a 402 square -foot,
two -car garage. A description of the rooms and outdoor areas with square footages is
provided in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1
ROOM TYPE
SQ. FT.
OUTDOOR
SQ. FT.
TOTAL
AREA
(Approx)
SQ. FT.
Media, Wine,
Study, Storage, 2
Bedrooms, 2
1,549
Terrace 1
186
1,735
Bathrooms,
Stair/Elevator
Garage, Foyer,
Great Room, Bar,
Dining, Kitchen,
1,215
Terrace 2
287
1,502
Powder,
Stair /Elevator
Master Bedroom,
Master Bathroom,
953
Terrace 3
124
1,077
spa, Laundry,
Stair /Elevator
ROM- I
3,717
587
4,314
4,279
4,412
The height of the proposed project ranges from 22 feet at the front (Pacific Drive - facing
elevation) to 53 feet 3 inches at the rear (Bayside Drive - facing elevation). The
proposed variance would permit the rear portions of the master bedroom and master
bath on the third floor to exceed the 24 -foot height limit by approximately
to �
The front elevation extends ` '' ° into the required 5 -foot front yard setback.
The proposed project would conform to all the required property development
regulations of the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District, with the exception of
height and required setbacks.
Megonigal Residence
April 3, 2008
Page 4
The Variance
Variances are sometimes necessary in order to preserve substantial property rights.
Variances are limited to those situations where the specific physical characteristics of
property make it difficult to develop under standard property development regulations.
Such physical characteristics may include the property's size, shape, dimensions, the
location of the existing structures, and geographic, topographic, or other physical
conditions.
The project site would appear to be a likely candidate for a variance: it is below the
minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet; it has an unusual, pentagonal shape; and over
half the property consists of slopes of 50 percent or more. However, staff is concerned
that the obvious physical constraints of the project site may be used to justify exceptions
to the height limits even though if they are not unduly constraining the site, thus allowing
development in excess of that which would be achieved under ordinary circumstances.
A variance can only be granted to bring the disadvantaged property up to the level of
use enjoyed by nearby properties in the same zoning district. To do otherwise would
constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with limitations upon the other
properties. Conditions must be imposed on a variance when necessary to maintain
parity between a variance site and surrounding properties to avoid granting an applicant
a special privilege.
The applicant states that the 24 -foot height limit creates a severe restriction when
applied to a site with a 56 percent slope. However, the proposed project will use
extensive grading of the site and a foundation system to create a relatively wide
development pad up to 13 feet below the existing grade. This will allow the first and
second floors and a significant portion of the third floor to be developed within the 24-
foot height limit. This raises the question of whether the variance is truly necessary in
order to preserve a substantial property right or to permit additional living area at an
elevation that would provide increased view opportunities to the property.
The classic example of a variance is where the steep rear portion of a residential lot
makes the site otherwise undevelopable; a variance might be approved to reduce the
front yard setback to create sufficient room for a home on the lot. However, advances
in building design and high property values have lead to situations in this community
where the topographic characteristics of a property no longer present a significant
constraint to development. For these reasons, staff requests direction from the
Planning Commission on how this, and future requests, for exceptions to property
development regulations should be addressed.
5
Megonigal Residence
April 3, 2008
Page 5
The Modification Permit
Granting of a modification permit to allow projection of the building into the required
front yard setback may be warranted by topographic constraints of the site. The extent
of the projection will be determined based on the building envelope resulting from the
configuration of the building consistent with the Planning Commission's direction.
Consistency with General Plan /LCP Policies
Resolution No. 2007 -3 requires that all new development comply with applicable polices
of the General Plan. Furthermore, because the proposed project does not conform to
the height limits of the Zoning Code, the provisions of Categorical Exclusion Order E-
77-5 do not apply; if a variance to height and modification permit are approved, the
proposed project will require a coastal development permit and must conform to the
policies and requirements of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan.
Public Views
Both the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contain several policies
requiring that new development project and, where feasible, enhance public views:
■ "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources
that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from
public vantage points." (LU 1.6 and NR 20.1)
■ "Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually
degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors
designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas,
where appropriate." (NR 20.2)
■ "Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway segments
(shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the figure." (NR
20.3)
■ Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public
view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent and
minimize impacts to public views" (NR 20.4)
■ "Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and
to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas." (CLUP 4.4.1 -1)
• "Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize
impacts to public coastal views." (CLUP 4.4.1 -2)
0
Megonigal Residence
April 3, 2008
Page 6
■ "Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or
corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal
views in developed areas." (CLUP 4.1.1 -3)
"Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public
coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent
public coastal views." (CLUP 4.4.1 -7)
Both Figure NR3 in the General Plan and the Coastal Views Map 4 -3 in the CLUP
identify Begonia Park as a public view point. Furthermore, the CLUP recognizes that
many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay. Begonia
Avenue, which terminates at the project site, provides such a view corridor.
The above polices in their totality require the proposed project to protect public views
from Begonia Park and the Begonia Avenue view corridor. Furthermore, the proposed
project will have to be evaluated in terms of its potential impact to the overall scenic and
visual qualities of the area. Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission on
how to best address these issues, given the development constraints of the project site.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Both the General Plan and the CLUP contain polices relating to the visual compatibility
of new development with the surrounding area:
■ "Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of
architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in
consideration of the following principles:
• Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the
appearance of "box- like" buildings
• Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street
facing elevations
• Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places
• Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house
to the neighborhood
• Orientation to desirable sunlight and views" (LU 5.1.5)
"Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of
styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and
quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form,
architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures,
Megonigal Residence
April 3, 2008
Page 7
result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open
spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns." (LU 5.6.2)
■ "Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with
the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (NR 22. 1, CLUP 4.4.2-
2)
"Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views
through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation
of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile
and maximize public view opportunities." (CL UP 4.4.2 -3)
The visual simulations provided by the applicant indicate that the proposed project
would be highly visible from the surrounding area. Therefore, staff requests direction
from the Planning Commission regarding the proposed projects consistency with the
above policies, particularly those relating to compatibility with the building form, scale,
and massing of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff would also like direction as to
whether story poles and /or additional visual simulations should be required as part of
this application.
Land Form Protection
Both the General Plan and the CLUP contain polices relating to the projection of natural
landforms:
"Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the
property's topography, landforms, drainage pattems natural vegetation, and
relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character
that distinguishes Newport Beach." (LU 5.6.4)
"Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcropping, and site buildings to
minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as
a visual resource." (NR 23.1)
"Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to marine
erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant
line of existing development in the subject area. This requirement shall apply to
the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and
pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and
stability of the development." (CLOP 4.4.3 -5)
■ "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff
faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del
Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing
development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal
resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when
fn
Megonigal Residence
April 3, 2008
Page 8
no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize
alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face,
and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent
feasible." (CLUP 4.4.3 -8)
Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard,
Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new
development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing
development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant
line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements.
The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of
the development." (CLUP 4.4.3 -9)
■ 'Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal
bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as:
A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an
alternative location is more protective of coastal resources.
B. Designing buildings to conform to natural contours of the site, and
arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and
building design.
C. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever
designs.
D. Requiring any altered slope to blend into the natural contours of the site."
(CLUP 4.4.3 -12)
The property is located on a coastal bluff as designated by the CLUP. Per CLUP Policy
4.4.3 -8, development is permitted on the bluff face, subject to the provisions of CLUP
Policy 4.4.3 -12 to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs. Staff requests direction from the
Planning Commission regarding the proposed projects consistency with the above
policies. Staff also requests direction on the provisions of CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -9 and
4.4.3 -12 that suggest that alteration of the bluff face is acceptable in order to protect
coastal resources (i.e., public views).
Environmental Review
The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 (In -Fill
Development Projects) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). This exemption applies to in -fill development projects in urban areas
that are consistent with the General Plan and applicable development standards. In
addition, the proposed development must occur on a site of no more than five acres,
have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and must not
I
Megonigal Residence
April 3, 2008
Page 9
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, air quality, water quality, or any other
significant effect on the environment due to an unusual circumstance.
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 including the applicant, and posted on the
subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of
the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting,
which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:
W2
�i
Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner
EXHIBITS
Submitted by:
David Lepo, PlanKing Director
1. General Plan Map (Figure NR3)
2. Coastal Land Use Plan Map (Map 4 -3)
3. Correspondence
4. Proposed project plans
FAUSERSIPZMSharedLOWMPAs - 2W APA2007- 13312008 -04.03 VA2007- 001perpt
'b
Exhibit No. 1
General Plan Map (Figure NR3)
\k
13
a
C d
Z J
Y
S
6N
C
Z Z
U
U
Da
>>
r^
V
0
�
�
♦
/l
�
b
�
~,
♦
1
3 S
13
v
`;
I
I �O
I v
a O
Q
m
N Q
ZZ
J Q
o y
V
� C)
Oz
w Q
� J
x
I♦
c:
♦' m
I
I
v♦ i � ENTRANCE
uARS0R
W
WO
x0
FW
W
U
O
0
Exhibit No. 2
Coastal Land Use Plan Map (Map 4-3)
1�
C O o
a
z > N o c o ro
75 w
in m w
Aza �
.................... i N -F AN
4
-ft `
P J r
LL
o �
Cl-
5
i
a
m
x
Et
e �=
0 era
U a�
t � e
CO V
O b (A B
�v 8
2 J
,iii
Exhibit No. 3
Correspondence
11
Page I of 1
Alford, Patrick
From: Varin, Ginger
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:30 PM
To: Alford, Patrick
Subject: FW: Begonia Park
fyi
Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
(949) 644 -3232 w
(949) 644 -3229 f
From: Cherall Weiss [ mailto:cheraII18 @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:27 PM
To: Bunim, Russell; Varin, Ginger; Gardner, Nancy
Subject: Begonia Park
Planning Department & Ms. Gardner:
As a resident of the area around Begonia Park, I am greatly disturbed by the proposed home construction
at 2333 Pacific Drive.
This park is now a meeting place for people from the area to picnic, play ball, have parties, walk dogs,
mingle with neighbors and more. The draw is not only the lovely park, but the magnificent view and
sense of peace and calm that that amazing view provides. The park greatly enhances the quality of life
in the area for residents and visitors alike.
I believe that the City, in its own mission statement, strives to be "stewards of the quality of life
cherished by those who live, work and visit here." Please maintain our quality of life by not allowing
the proposed construction variance at 2333 Pacific Dr. Save the view, and our neighborhood from
unnecessary overbuilding.
Thank You,
Cherall Weiss
949.723.6202
03/24/2008 A0
PATRICIA BELL
JANET H. BELL
411 BE60NIA AVENUE,
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625
(714)540 -6830 pattatlast @sbcglobal.net
March 26, 2008
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission
330 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92663
RE: Proposed Plans at 2333 Pacific Drive — Corona del Mar
Variance VA2007 -001 and Modification MD2007 -080
HEARING DATE: April 3, 2008
Commissioners:
The City of Newport Beach is currently considering the above captioned Variance and
Amendment which would negatively effect property at 411 Begonia Avenue that is owned by my
Mother, Janet H. Bell and myself. It would also negatively impact the public views from our very popular
neighborhood park. In effect, if this huge house is allowed to be built we will lose both the bay and
ocean views from our own residence as well as the ability to enjoy bay and ocean views from the park
across the street.
My Mother is currently 87 years old — she will be 88 in September — and has lived in her current
home on Begonia for over 47 years. Mother loves her home and she loves Corona del Mar. She
especially enjoys the beautiful view from the patio and second floor and the gorgeous sunsets. In addition
to just the loss of enjoyment we would incur, a consultation with a local Real Estates agent confirmed for
us that having a view of the ocean replaced with the view of the largest house in the neighborhood would
result in significant drop in the value of our house. Mother's living expenses are paid from the equity in
the house.
I was surprised to learn from a representative of the Planning Department that it is not the
City's duty or job to protect private property rights — and that none of us is entitled to an ocean view, no
matter how long we have enjoyed it. I found this very surprising and disappointing as I would think that
protecting homeowners would be a City priority and directive. I also understand, however, that the
General Plan precludes building houses that block public views as the Megonigal house would, and this
does concern the City greatly.
We know that the homeowner has a right to build on his property at 2333 Pacific Drive and are not
disputing that BUT the homeowner does not have an absolute right to obtain a variance in order to build a
very large house, especially if:
M
• It is not in parity with the rest of the neighborhood;
• A variance is not necessary for the efficient use of his property. He may be entitled
to a variance if one is necessary to build on a par with the rest of the homes in the
neighborhood BUT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO MORE;
• Even if he has an "unusual" piece of property (unusual in size or shape or
topography) if building can be accomplished without a variance and in accordance
with the General Plan he is not entitled to a Variance.
I looked over the plans for this residence and it is HUGE. The Planning Department confirmed
that it would definitely be the largest house in the neighborhood. With only one or two unfortunate
exceptions Pacific Avenue consists of original residences — like ours — and cliffside houses that are built
into the side of the hill, leaving very little showing at the street level. These houses were my friends
houses so I know that they have almost all been re -built and none of these houses found it necessary to
build up to a level that would destroy the views of their neighbors across the street. A house the size of
the proposed Megonigal project would be completely out of place. From what I could tell from the plans
the front of the house — what we would all be looking at — was particularly unattractive.
Understandably, when there is a view available, a person building a house would want to construct
it so that they could obtain the best view possible. This is not the case here. The Megonigals lot has a
completely unobstructed 180 degree view of the bay and the ocean no matter what size the house is!
There is absolutely no need to build up from street level as high as they are requesting in order to secure a
nice view and it seems selfish and greedy for them to do so at the expense of their neighbors.
I also understand that City Planners try to assist homeowners in designing a house on a problem
lot— like a strangely shaped lot or one that has topographical problems — by granting variances that might
help. The Megonigal lot is certainly a strange lot but it is not unusual in that area. All of the houses on
that side of Pacific are built on similar cliffside lots. It may be necessary to build closer to the street as
requested as there is not much flat area in front but it is not necessary to build UP so high, As I mentioned
before, other houses in the neighborhood managed to construct interesting and beautiful houses on the
side on the hill without building multiple stories up from street level.
Begonia Park is a small neighborhood park that is beloved by all of us and it is heavily used for all
kinds of activities. We have neighborhood parties, baseball games, badminton and other activities. Every
day at lunchtime you see people sitting on the bench or sunbathing on a blanket gazing out at the ocean.
At 5pm the dogs and dog owners come out and socialize. Frequently we have weddings in the park —
with the backdrop always being the beautiful oceanfbay view. It would be a terrible shame to take the
view away from this popular neighborhood park.
The Megonigal house is larger than it needs to be. It is going to be bigger than any other house in
the area and it will be out of parity with the whole neighborhood. It is not necessary for such a large
house to be built in order to obtain a view. It is not necessary to obtain a Variance in order to build on the
lot.
I hope the Planning Commission will deny the requested Variance and Amendment and require a
more conservative project that does not unnecessarily decimate private and public views. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
PATRICIA BELL
Aa
Exhibit No. 4
Proposed project plans
25
a15
t=
Er nS
41
U
LO
>10
N
-0
CY)
U
cu
>
L
CL
CU
co
C
_U
`�
�
(0
_
N
-0
N
Q
• _
-p
M
O
cu
co
O
co
N
0
cm
U
W
E
a15
P
! | | | | | | | | | ||
§ / |A\ If
(
\ |
` � ! | �• | |:
\�$ \§■!� H|
L__J_jj R§
)
d§
\k
k)
/§
Al
w
.0k
2y
1.
AIMM
I SWIMMOM
rm
wl _�
IN-
I
Ilk
0
0
O
2
,®R
-777
PE
2
:2
E IN
Al
Q
Qi
O
FE
5o
V
L
a
N
m
m
m
0
rn
`s
s
N
n
0 �a
0
40
wI "m
G
.0
c
0
F-
31