Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStephen Sheldon (PA2005-225) 14 Old Course DrCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No.2 January 19, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3234, bnichols@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2005 -103 (PA2005 -225) 14 Old Course Drive APPELLANT & APPLICANT: Stephen Sheldon, property owner On November 14, 2005, the Zoning Administrator considered the applicant's request for a Modification Permit to allow the construction of a detached accessory building that would encroach 5 feet into a required 10 -foot rear yard setback. The encroachment was requested to accommodate the construction of a 624 square foot pool house measuring 14 -feet 6- inches in height with an 18 -foot high chimney. The applicant also requested an additional 2 -foot encroachment to accommodate the eave overhang for the structure. The site plan for the proposed development is attached as Exhibit 1. After reviewing the applicant's request, the Zoning Administrator determined that the applicant did not provide adequate justification to support the full 5 -foot rear yard encroachment, and approved a minor 1 -foot encroachment for the structure and an additional 1 -foot encroachment for the eave overhang. The Zoning Administrator cited the following reasons for reducing the amount of encroachment: • The subject property is larger and deeper than adjacent lots to the north which comply with the required setbacks. • The rear yard area of the subject property is larger than the rear yards of lots to the south. • Adequate area exists in the rear yard to accommodate the pool house and minimize the amount of encroachment into the required rear yard setback. Due to the large lot size and rear yard area, the Zoning Administrator determined that the pool house and rear yard amenities could be accommodated on the property without the need for the full 5 -foot encroachment into the rear setback. The approval letter for the Modification Permit is attached as Exhibit 2. MD2005 -103 Appeal January 19, 2006 Page 2 ii E MD2005 -103 Appeal January 19, 2006 Page 3 On November 23, 2005 the appellant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. DISCUSSION Appeal The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the application and approve the original encroachment request. The appellant contends that the findings required to approve the modification can be made and cites the following factors in support of the appeal: That the shape of the lot limits the owner's utilization and enjoyment of the lot due to practical difficulties associated with the property. That the proposed pool house will be compatible with the existing home and the neighboring residences. That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood. The full appeal letter outlines the appellant's arguments in support of the above conclusions. This letter is attached as Exhibit 3. Section 20.95 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 20.95.060 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo ", meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Lot Characteristics The property is located at 14 Old Course Drive. The lot is flat and is 11,653 square feet in area. The property is somewhat irregular in shape (i.e. not rectangular) and is approximately 178 feet deep measured from the front property line to the far corner at the rear of the property. The lot is approximately 80 feet in width at the widest point and narrows to 47 feet and 6 inches at the rear property line. There is approximately 4300 square feet of rear yard area behind the existing single family dwelling (see Exhibit 4). Single family properties are located directly adjacent to the north and south of the property and an association owned lot is adjacent to the east. An aerial photo of the lot and surrounding properties is attached as Exhibit 5. The vicinity map also shows the lot and its relation to surrounding properties. The subject property is zoned PC -24 (Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community). The Planned Community text contains the development standards for planning areas within PC -24 zone district. The required rear yard setback for detached buildings and q MD2005 -103 Appeal January 19, 2006 Page 4 structures is 10 feet. Accessory structures such as the pool house are subject to the same setback requirements as the main dwelling. Analysis Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes findings required for approval of a Modification Permit. To approve a modification the following three findings must be made: The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. To make this finding, it must be shown that the property has some practical difficulty or constraint that when combined with the strict application of the 10 -foot rear yard setback creates a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the purpose of the code. Setback modifications can be appropriate for exceptionally small or irregularly shaped lots that do not meet current lot standards or for lots where topography severely limits proposed development. It is staffs opinion that the lot in question does not possess these physical characteristics. As stated, the lot is flat and measures 11,653 square feet in area. Based upon data from the City's Geographic Information System the lot is larger than 90% of the lots in the planned community. The lot depth also exceeds that of the adjacent lots and is deeper than most lots in the community. Although the lot narrows at the rear of the property, it still retains approximately 4,300 square feet of rear yard area behind the existing single family residence. Due to the lot's size, depth and large rear yard area, it is staffs opinion that there is no practical difficulty associated with the property and that no physical hardship results from the application of the rear setback requirement. It is therefore staffs belief that this finding cannot be made. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The purpose of this finding is to ensure that the granting of the modification will not result in development that is out of character with existing development in the neighborhood. Accessory structures are common features of residential properties and are permitted under the planned community development regulations. The proposed structure will be architecturally compatible with the main dwelling and will not exceed the lot coverage requirements for the district. For these reasons it is staffs determination that this finding can be made. t. MD2005 -103 Appeal January 19, 2006 Page 5 3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or improvements in the neighborhood. In this case, the rear property line of the lot abuts association property. The proposed development will be screened by association landscaping planted adjacent to the rear property line and the pool house will not be visible from the adjacent street. (See Exhibit 6). Due to the structure's location at the rear of the property and its proximity to neighboring structures, it is staffs opinion that the modification will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. It is therefore staffs determination that this finding can be made. The appellant contends that the irregular shape of the lot creates a practical difficulty that limits the owner's utilization and enjoyment of the property. It is the opinion of staff, that the "practical difficulty" cited by the applicant is created by the choice of design rather than an innate characteristic of the lot. Adequate space exists to the rear of the main dwelling to accommodate the pool house, pool and related landscaping without the need for a setback encroachment. Since the proposed development is new construction within a large rear yard area, there are a number of design alternatives that could provide full utilization of the lot while maintaining the required setbacks. After reviewing the information submitted for the appeal, staff is recommending that the appeal and modification be denied because of the inability to make the first required finding. Staff is also recommending that development on the site be subject to the code required development standards. A draft resolution for this action is attached as Exhibit 7. Environmental Review The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hail and on the city website. 11 MD2005 -103 Appeal January 19, 2006 Page 6 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and the Modification Permit, thereby and requiring all new construction to observe the code required setbacks. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has three readily identifiable alternatives: 1. Uphold the Zoning Administrator's previous approval, granting a one foot encroachment for the wall of the pool house and an additional 1 foot eave overhang. 2. Approve the applicant's original request allowing the pool house to encroach 5 feet into the required 10 -foot rear yard setback, along with an additional 2 -foot allowance to accommodate the eave overhang. 3. Modify any aspect of the approved Modification Permit. Prepared by: 6 Brandbn Nichols, Assist nt Planner EXHIBITS 1. Proposed Plans 2. Modification Approval Letter 3. Appeal Letter 4. Backyard Area Calculation 5. Aerial Photograph 6. Property Photographs 7. Draft Resolution Submitted by: V� For atricia L. Tem e, Planning Director 9 a �: _ v z `- v z D_ > Q FO � aaaaa i y�(�l ��iil'� '!!� 1 1i1l61 YJ1NOdM3N ON 3sdnoS Ol0 61 3�N3OIS3N NOOl3HS NVId 3115 V $ W a 1I o ID3101W 31yi a �: _ v z `- v z D_ > Q �?m- Tioo) '��E i VD'HJtl3811JOdM3N 4N 3SNf1O7 O1O 41 37N3OIS3'd N0O13HS NH1d11OOld 3snOH IOOd � » .A - nanioii�'oa 3ar sor+vY - :3ivioo : :v iioo: vvvw 1° z Q Q a aaaa Z u � W v s w �?m- o o Dl z Q Q ti z w d Z Q Q w Y W d W= U3 J ry ro v Q �?m- ti W w O ti W W W 4 N LL W J ti W w i W W 0 b',7'HJV3 oS alo3N vi 3g3id„o,,, �I a pp 30N301S3'd NOO13HS SNOI-LYA313 3' eq b $ §dd d<]4 aai�•ppyy llili�e9 ito,r-Ma�„ �4 S' W i ID b 31L1 ti W w O ti W W W 4 N LL W J ti W w i W W 0 t z lq NOO73HS N67d30N30/SN 1d30NOO taroae awl r t z lq EXHIBIT 2 Modification Approval Letter �5 November 14, 2005 MODIFICATION NO. MD2005 -103 (PA2005 -225) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 6443200 FAX (949) 644 -3229 Stephen Sheldon 14 Old Course Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Application No. Applicant Site Address Legal Description Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206 Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date Modification Permit No. MD2005 -103 (PA2005 -225) Stephen Sheldon 14 Old Course Drive Lot 44, Tract 15387 Request as Modified and Approved To allow the construction of a detached accessory building that will encroach 1 foot 5 feet into the required 10 -foot rear yard setback. The structure. will be approximately 14 -feet 6- inches tall with an 18- foot -tall chimney. Also requested in the application is a roof overhang that will extend 1 foot 2 feet beyond the face of the proposed accessory structure into the 10 -foot rear yard setback. The chimney does not encroach into any side or rear yard setback. The property is located in the PC (Ford Aeronutronic Planned Community) District. On November 14. 2005, the Zoning Administrator approved the application request, as modified, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. In this case, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. The modification, as approved, would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: 11 RNDINGS The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" residential use, and the existing residential structure is consistent with this designation. The structure is accessory to the primary use. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 11 (Accessory Structures). 3. The modification to the Zoning Code and the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District Regulations, as modified and approved, would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. It is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: The Ford Aeronutronic Planned Community District Regulations do not give special treatment to properties that abut a roadway, common area or association property. The Ford Aeronutronic Planned Community District Regulations do not lend any relief to detached accessory structures of the type proposed, which is approximately 14 -feet 6- inches tall. • The same setback requirements apply to the proposed 14 -foot 6- inch -tall pool house structure and to the main or primary building. • The one foot allowance, as approved, is a minor encroachment into the required 10 -foot rear setback. • The related eave overhang is within the acceptable range of encroachments of the planned community regulations. • The applicant has not provided adequate justification to support the originally proposed encroachment of 5 feet. The subject property is larger and deeper than the immediately adjacent lots to the north, which comply with the required setbacks, and the subject rear yard area is larger than the rear yards of the lots to the south. Therefore, there is adequate room on the site to accommodate the proposed structure and to reduce and minimize the amount of encroachment (to one foot at the living area and an additional foot to the roof overhang) into the 10 -foot rear yard setback. • The proposed yard amenities that include the pool and patio area can be reoriented, realigned or reduced in size or shape to afford relocation of the proposed detached accessory structure to eliminate or reduce the amount of encroachment into the rear yard setback 4. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this modified application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property. The strict application of the Zoning Code and the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District Regulations results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reason: November 14, 2005 FAUSERSIPLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 2251MD2005 -103 appr.doc Page 2 The lot is irregularly shaped and narrows at the rear and would justify a minor setback encroachment of one foot at the living area (10% of the 10- foot setback depth) and one foot at the roof overhang beyond the building face. However, the size and depth of the lot does not justify a 5 -foot encroachment (50% of the 10 -foot rear yard setback) into the 10 -foot setback as originally proposed. The relocation of the proposed detached accessory structure away from the rear property line and a reduction in the size of other proposed amenities, such as the pool and landscape area, will allow accommodation of the proposed accessory structure as designed with minimal encroachment into the rear yard setback. The configuration or shape of the subject lot although irregular (since it is not rectangular in shape), supports or justifies a modest encroachment into the setback area. However, the overall size (area and depth) of the lot offsets the unusual lot shape and therefore justifies only a modest encroachment into the 10 -foot rear yard setback and not a substantial encroachment as originally proposed. The applicant did not provide adequate objective justification for the amount of proposed encroachment, 5 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback which is 50% of the setback depth. Additionally, the width of encroachment is 32 -feet long and the lot width at the setback line is 52 -feet wide, therefore, the encroachment would be 62% of the lot width along the setback line. 5. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the requested modification will be compatible with existing development(s) in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The homeowners' association has approved the proposed development. Accessory structures are allowed by the planned community regulations. 6. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this Modification Permit request, as modified, will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood based on the following: The 14 -foot 6 -inch tall detached accessory structure meets the lot coverage and height requirements of the district. The detached accessory structure will not encroach into the required side yard setbacks. The minor rear yard setback encroachment will not be readily discernible from the rear of the property since the encroachment as approved is minor in nature. November 14, 2005 F:\USERS \PLN\Shared \PA's \PAs - 2005\PA2005- 225 \MD2005 -103 appr.doc Page 3 [ I� 7. The proposed accessory building will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties because: The encroachment is located at the rear of the lot. The other setbacks will be maintained. There is a large open area between the subject building and the main residential structure. 8. The proposed detached accessory structure will not obstruct public views from adjacent public roadways or parks because: There are no public views through or across the subject property that are affected by the proposed project. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The detached accessory building shall maintain a minimum rear yard setback of 9 feet from the rear property line, and the related roof overhang may extend a maximum of shall be at least 8 feet from the rear property line. This approval does not preclude the relocation of the structure anywhere else on the property that will conform to the required side and rear yard setbacks. 3. Anything not specifically approved by this Modification Permit is prohibited and must be addressed in a separate and subsequent Modification Permit review. 4. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not, in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide, constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Modification Permit 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 Modification Permit and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 6. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the plancheck sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 7. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction. November 14, 2005 F:IUSERSIPLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 2251MD2005.103 appr.doc Page 4 N 8. All work performed within the public right -of -way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit(agreement, if required. 9. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the approval date, as specked in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Prior to the expiration date of this approval, an extension may be approved in accordance with Section 20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Requests for an extension must be in writing. APPEAL PERIOD The Zoning Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the action date. A $ 570.00 filing fee shall accompany any appeal filed. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. A copy of the By: �. Zoning Administr4for Javier S. Garcia, AICP JSGlmem Attachments: Vicinity Map cc: Aerial Photo Karen Sully Site Photos 901 Dove Street, Suite 901 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Appeared in None Opposition: Appeared in None Support: November 14, 2005 F:IUSERSIPLN1Shared\PA's%PAs - 20051PA2005- 2251MD2005 -103 appr.doc Page 5 �A GWUP Public Affairs • Land Use • Law November 23, 2005 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Chair Toerge and Planning Commissioners, RE: Appeal of Planning Application PA 2005 -225; Modification Permit (MD 2005- 103) pertaining to 14 Old Course, Newport Beach, CA; Homeowner /Applicant Stephen Sheldon We respectfully request reconsideration of Mr. Sheldon's request to permit the construction of a proposed detached accessory structure that will function as a pool house in Mr. Sheldon's rear yard. The proposed building will encroach 5 feet into the 10 -foot required rear yard setback in a few areas; the building overhang is proposed to encroach 2 feet into the same setback in those locations. The existing parcel is irregular in shape, especially towards the rear where the property line comes in at a severe angle. This makes it difficult to achieve any form of symmetry with an accessory building in the rear. Therefore, as proposed, the building will encroach into the setback area in a few locations. This is demonstrated on the site plan. For background purposes, on November 7th and 14th, 2005, the item was heard before the Zoning Administrator where he granted only a one -foot building encroachment and a one —foot eave encroachment. This decision is not acceptable to us since it will not allow us to achieve the size, shape and design of the proposed pool house structure. Additionally, during the Zoning Administrator hearings, we requested that the fireplace be relocated to the rear of the building (plans show it on the east side). This change is simply a design and function feature that will allow the fireplace to be in the middle of the room. It is not uncommon for fireplaces to encroach into setback areas (usually 2 -2 %s feet). It should also be noted that Mr. Sheldon's property does not directly back up to other residences. There is a large expansive open area to the rear of the home. The neighboring development features a local "single- loaded" street with residences on the other side. This is shown in the aerial photo that was submitted with the original modification permit as well as via a site visit to the property. As such, there are no residences that would be affected by the encroachment. Also, for information purposes, the homeowners association has approved the plans. In conclusion, we contend that the necessary findings for the requested modification can easily be made. As is, the existing shape of the lot makes it difficult for the homeowner aF 901 Dove Street, Suite 140, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • phone 949 - 777 -9400 • fax 949- 777 -9410 web wwwsheldangrp.com Riverside 951 -300 -2220 San Diego 619 - 233 -7135 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Re: 14 Old Course Request for Modification November 23, 2005 Page 2 of 2 to gain full utilization and enjoyment of his lot due to "practical difficulties associated with the property." As seen on the plans, the proposed pool house is a complementary j element to the other back yard elements and amenities on the property. The design is architecturally sound and aesthetically pleasing. The proposed pool house is also compatible with the existing home and with the neighboring single - family residences. Therefore, the granting of this application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhoods and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvement in the neighborhood. In fact, the construction of the pool house will greatly improve and increase the property value of the site and surrounding neighborhood. We respectfully request that you overturn the Zoning Administrator's action on the item and allow the rear yard encroachment as proposed. Thank you very much for your consideration in this regard. Sincerely, Karen S. Sully, Applicant's Representative Project Manager, Land Use Sheldon Group cc: Stephen R. Sheldon, President Attachments/Enclosures 1) Appeal Form 2) Check No. 2580 in the amount of $570.00 3) Property owners labels for public notice 4) 12 sets of 11" x 17" reductions of plans t 10 EXHIBIT 4 Backyard Area Calculation a-1 EXHIBIT 6 Property Photographs 31,0 : @�� �� �-- - zyy� '17 ] t 4 � r� f AW 8 11-3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2005 -103 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14 OLD COURSE DRIVE (PA2005 -225). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Stephen Sheldon with respect to property located at 14 Old Course Drive, requesting approval of Modification Permit No. 2005 -103 to permit the construction of a detached accessory structure that would encroach 5 feet into a required 10 -foot rear yard setback. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 19, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. WHEREAS, the property is designated Single Family Detached /Single Family Attached by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the PC -24 (Aeronutronic Ford) Planned Community District. WHEREAS, the granting of the application is not necessary due to the absence of practical difficulties associated with the property. The flat property is 11,653 square feet in area and has a large rear yard of approximately 4,300 square feet including setback areas. The rear yard area without the setbacks has an average depth of approximately 61 feet and an average width of approximately 56 feet. Therefore, the lot does not possess any physical characteristic that would constitute a practical difficulty that would preclude the full enjoyment and use of the rear yard with strict application of the required rear yard setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Section 1. Based upon the aforementioned facts, the Planning Commission hereby denies Modification Permit No. 2005 -103. Section 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 or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 45 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF JANUARY 2006. BY: Michael Toerge, Chairman I Barry Eaton, Secretary 6 ABSENT: qq