Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDAmato Residence-PA2004-189 - 2319 Pacific DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 August 3, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 6443209, jmurillo4city newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: D'Amato Residence 2319 Pacific Drive Variance No. 2004 -002 Modification Permit No. 2006 -072 (PA2004 -189) APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. D'Amato, property owners ISSUE Should the Planning Commission approve a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a Modification Permit to allow portions of a two -car garage, balcony and an architectural wall element to encroach within the required front yard setback? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2004 -002 and Modification Permit No. 2006 -072, subject to the findings and conditions in the attached draft resolution. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The lot is currently developed with a two -story single - family residence and attached garage that was originally constructed in 1927. To the northeast, across Pacific Drive, are single - family dwellings. Directly northwest and southeast, are single - family dwellings developed in a similar manner as the subject proposed residence. To the southwest, across Bayside Drive, are single- family dwellings, which front on the harbor. Cq D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 3 The subject property is approximately 5,220 square feet in area and is trapezoidal in shape, situated on a coastal bluff that slopes away from Pacific Drive down to Bayside Drive. The lot slopes gradually down for the front 60% of the property, where it is developed with the existing residence. The rear 40% of the lot steeply slopes towards Bayside Drive and is heavily vegetated. Project Overview The subject property is zoned R -1 and is subject to the following development regulations: Lot Size: 5,220 square feet (5,000 square feet minimum required) Required Setbacks: Front (Pack Drive) 17 feet for dwelling 19 feet for garage Front ( Bayside Drive) 15 feet Sides 4 feet Buildable Area: 3,292.9 square feet Maximum Floor Area: 4,939.35 square feet (3,292.9 x 1.5) Height Limit: 24' flat roof or mid -point / 29' ridge The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing single - family dwelling and the construction of a new three - level, single - family dwelling with an attached two -car garage and deck areas. Additionally, an existing street tree (California Fan Palm) must be removed to accommodate the new driveway approach. The General Services Department has stated that the tree is diseased with Diamond Scale & Pink Bud Rot and believes the tree will only survive another 2 years given its current condition. Therefore, they have recommended that the property owner pay for the removal of the tree and replace the tree elsewhere in the City with a 36 „ box tree. Replacement of the tree near the property on the south side of Pacific Drive was not recommended due to the proximity of the overhead power lines. The proposed project has the following characteristics: Proposed Square Footage Tabulation: Upper Level: 1,324 square feet Main Level: 1,598 square feet Lower Level: 1,567 square feet D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 4 Garage (at Main - Level): 450 sWare feet Total: 4,939 square feet Roof deck: 464 square feet Other decks 682 square feet Proposed roof height above existing grade (front): 22.18' midpoint/28' ridge Proposed roof height above existing grade (bluff side): 27.32' midpoint/29.75' ridge Proposed deck height above existing grade (bluff side):25.66' deck/28.84' rail ANALYSIS General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the site for "Single Family Detached" uses. The proposed single - family residence is consistent with this designation. Additionally, the project has been designed to comply with all applicable R -1 development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, with the exception of the requested variance for height and modification for setback encroachments. Staff believes the deviations requested are justified and are specifically discussed in detail later in this report. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection. The CLUP designates the site for Low Density Residential (RL 4.6 - 6 DU /AC). The proposed residence is consistent with this designation as the project solely consists of reconstructing a single - family dwelling and will not change the density nor exceed the maximum density of the neighborhood. The proposed project is also located in the Categorical Exclusion Order area (as defined by the California Coastal Commission) and is not subject to the review by the California Coastal Commission. The Categorical Exclusion Order was created in 1977 and it excludes the construction of single - family and two - family residences, within a defined area of the coastal zone, from the permit requirements of the California Coastal Act. Properties within the exclusion area were found to present no potential for any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources or on public access to, or along the coasts. Although excluded, staff has reviewed the proposed project with applicable policies of the City's new CLUP to insure compliance with its goals and objectives. D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 5 Coastal bluffs are considered a significant natural landform and are an important part of the scenic and visual quality of the coastal zone, and are to be protected as a resource of public importance. During its review, staff found that Policy D of the Land Use Element and several of the following policies contained within the CLUP should be considered, specifically as they pertain to the development on a coastal bluff: Policy D - Land Use Element "The sitting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs". Coastal Land Use Plan Policies Coastal Views 4.4.1 -1 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. 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Natural Landform Protection 4.4.3 -8 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 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. 4.4.3 -9 Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevaro; Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant fine of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant fine of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. 4.4.3 -12 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. I D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 6 S. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. 4.4.3 -13 Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and/or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. 4.4.3 -15 Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. The discussion of Policy D within the Land Use Element states that it is the intent of the City to protect private property rights, while maintaining a commitment to regulate the placement of buildings and structures in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources. The CLUP policies address similar preservation issues, although are broken up into more specific objectives and regulations. Therefore, by demonstrating compliance with the CLUP policies, the project as a result could be found consistent with Land Use Policy D. Identifying the predominant line of development is critical in evaluating the development proposal. "Predominant Line of Development' is defined within the CLUP as "the most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g. topographic fine or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line)." However, due to the extensive development over the bluff edge that exists today, it is difficult to determine the median distance that development currently extends beyond the bluff edge. As a reasonable alternative, staff calculated the approximate median distance neighboring residences extend from the front property line (as measured from the center of each lot); however, due the trapezoidal shape of the lot, using this approach does not provide a clear or representative line of development as all of those residences would encroach beyond the established line with the southwesterly comer of each am D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 7 home. Additionally, staff calculated the mediah distance development extends from the front property line utilizing the furthest extent of each structure; however, this approach resulted in a line of development that would extend too far down the bluff face and would allow existing structures additional opportunity to develop further down the bluff (Exhibit 2). Staff also attempted to identify a predominant line of development by drawing stringlines with the adjacent structures and accessory improvements consistent with traditional stringline approach used by Coastal Commission staff (Exhibit 3). However, once again due to the trapezoidal shape of the lot and the configuration of the adjacent residences in relationship to the bluff face, the stringlines do not represent the predominant line of development very well as the lines are far from parallel to the bluff and would suggest a building limit for the property that is not close to similar abutting residences. However, staff believes that a clear predominant line of development can be identified using a line drawn from the furthest extent from the principal structural elements of each residence across the entire unaltered bluff face (excluding the lots to the west that take access from Bayside Drive). This line was identified by staff for analytical purposes to see if the proposed development is sited in a similar fashion with adjacent structures. Exhibit 4 illustrates this line and how the proposed project is sited similarly (in line) with its immediate neighbors. Additionally, the line preserves the visual appearance of the bluff viewed as by the public from below or from across the harbor. The bluff as viewed in elevation will maintain the existing line of development as established by the two adjoining buildings and the proposed structure will not encroach below this development line. Exhibit 5 is a visual simulation that has been provided by the applicant which illustrates the compatibility of the proposed structure in context with the neighboring residences and how the project will preserve a large majority of the visual appearance and the natural landform of the bluff face. Although the project site is not identified by the CLUP as a public view point and Pacific Drive is not identified as a coastal view road requiring public view protection, the bluff and the proposed project are highly visible from Bayside Drive, from the harbor, and from across the harbor on the peninsula. Based upon Exhibits 4 and 5, the residence will appear to conform to the predominate line of development and the visual appearance of the bluff as can be viewed by the public will be preserved. Additionally, since a majority of the proposed development is sited on the flattest portion of the lot consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -12, the project minimizes alterations of the natural landform of the bluff face. Specific development restrictions, including bluff top setbacks, construction techniques, and site designs standards, are required to protect and minimize alteration to natural coastal bluffs. The CLUP policies prohibit development on bluff faces and requires bluff top development to be setback from the bluff edge in order to ensure slope stability, protection from erosion, and to preserve the bluff in its natural state. However, since Corona del Mar is one of few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive I D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 8 residential development on bluff faces and since the particular bluff underlies a conventional subdivision that has been developed over time on a lot -by -lot basis, the CLUP permits continued development in these areas. Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 permit development on the Pacific Drive bluff faces subject to the predominant line of development. Exhibit 6 illustrates the existing extent of development and bluff alterations of neighboring structures located to the northwest of this property. As noted, the proposed building is sited as required by Policy 4.4.3 -9 within the predominant line of development identified by staff. However, Policy 4.4.3 -8 contains additional provisions to consider. First, improvements can only be permitted when no feasible alternative exists. The Commission needs to consider whether or not a smaller building is feasible as the site is not large enough to locate the proposed building without encroachment upon the bluff face. A smaller footprint coupled with the tendency to maximize floor area could lead to cantilevered designs, a larger basement level on the upper portion of the lot, a reduced front yard or a taller building. None of these potential options are optimal in staffs opinion and simply reducing the floor area to have a smaller building footprint is the most feasible alternative. Second, improvements are to be designed to minimize alteration of the bluff face. The project will alter 100% of the bluff face covered by the proposed footprint of the building within the predominant line of development while preserving the bluff face below. Approximately 90% percent of the entire bluff face will be preserved. Third, improvements must not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face. Staff has included a condition of approval that requires the implementation of a drainage plan that conveys rainwater to Pacific Drive or to the toe of the bluff within a drain pipe. Additionally, staff has included a condition prohibiting landscaping or irrigation practices that could contribute to erosion. Lastly, improvements must be visually compatible with the surrounding development. As previously indicated, the proposed project is within the predominant line of development and it is staffs opinion that the public will not notice this project once it is completed. The project has been designed consistent with site design and construction techniques identified in Policy 4.4.3 -12, as follows: • The proposed development, as discussed in Policy 4.4.3 -8, has been designed to maximize the area of development above the bluff face; however, in order to enjoy the same rights and privileges of floor area that has been enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, a small portion of the residence will be developed over the bluff face. • The existing residence is a small, two -story structure, constructed in 1927. The original homes constructed in that time were typically small beach cottages or vacation homes and did not maximize the development rights granted to them at the time. However, the neighborhood has since been redeveloped with permanent residences that typically maximize the building envelope and floor area limitations. Confining the proposed development to the existing building pad D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 9 will severely limit the amount of floor area that can be developed on the site and is not a feasible alternative as it unfairly penalizes the property owner from development similarly enjoyed by others in the vicinity and permitted by Code. The proposed garage has been located to the northwesterly portion of the lot and requires the need for a new driveway and approach, as opposed to utilizing the existing driveway. The northwesterly portion of the lot is slightly less constrained by topography, and is the most logical location to site the garage. Additionally, this allows the project to maximize the amount of habitable floor area that can be accommodated within the more constrained portions of the lot, without significantly encroaching over the bluff face and beyond the predominant line of development. • The proposed residence has been designed with a stepped foundation design and conforms with the natural contours of the site to the maximum extent feasible, while still achieving the anticipated level of floor area enjoyed by adjacent properties. Like the front and rear property lines, the bluff contours are not perpendicular to the side lot lines, but rather skew diagonally from the side lot lines creating an additional design constraint. The proposed residence has been designed to conform to the skew, while respecting the predominant line of development. • Protection of the bluff would not be obtained through a detached garage design as the proposed residence must be located on the less constrained portions of the lot to the maximum extent possible in order to minimize alterations to the bluff. Portions of the bluff not proposed for redevelopment will not be altered. Policies 4.4.3 -13, and 4.4.3 -15 requires the project to be designed to minimize coastal bluff recession and the removal of native vegetation and rock outcroppings. The subject bluff is not subject to marine erosion, but is rather located inland and stabilized by Bayside Drive. Additionally, the proposed residence will not disturb the existing vegetation or bluff face below the predominant line of development and no significant rock outcroppings exist on the site. Height Limit Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance to exceed the required 24 -foot height limit for portions of the proposed structure. The Zoning Code defines the height of a structure as the vertical distance between the highest point of a structure and the grade directly below. As mentioned in the project description, the midpoint of the proposed roof exceeds the 24 -foot height limit by approximately 3.32 -feet and the ridge is approximately 9- inches above the 29 -foot ridge height allowance at the highest point of the structure on the bluff side. The roof top deck of the proposed structure is approximately 4.84 -feet above the 24 -foot height limit at the highest point on the bluff D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 10 side. The roof plan clearly illustrates the heights of all midpoints and ridges, and additionally illustrates the portions of the roof which exceed the height limits relative to existing grades. Section 20.91.035(6) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The subject property is located on a bluff and is therefore encumbered by the steeply sloped topography on the southwest portion of the lot, which restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code while avoiding significant alteration of the bluff. Additionally, the predominant line of development limitation designed to preserve the coastal bluff further deprives this property from achieving the maximum permitted floor area limitations. Neighboring residences have achieved the 1.5 floor area ratio limitation by constructing further down the slope, some of which have also been granted similar variances to height. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. A significant portion of the subject property consists of a steeply sloping and unimproved coastal bluff. Additionally, the design of the residence and extent of alteration to the coastal bluff is limited to the predominate line of development. Denial of the variance would reduce the size of the residence well below the maximum allowable floor area and it would be smaller than newly constructed houses in the area. A reduction of floor area diminishes the owner's use and value of the property. Therefore, the approval of the variance will preserve their right to floor area, while still allowing the City to achieve its goal to reduce further alteration of the coastal bluff. The project as proposed works within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree possible, and preserves the applicant's ability to achieve a comparable sized home with others in the neighborhood. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations t- D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 11 that exist in the area and on this lot. If the sloped condition did not exist, the applicant could design a home within the required height limitation. Additionally, the proposed floor area is consistent with the maximum FAR permitted by Code and with similar properties along the bluff, and therefore, staff believes this finding can be made. The residence as viewed in the visual simulation exhibit is similar in size and location to the adjacent houses and approval does not grant the applicant a special privilege. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. Additionally, granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact the visual view of the bluff face as viewed from below or from across the harbor as the structure adheres to the predominate line of existing development across the bluff. Compatibility with neighboring residences along the bluff is further illustrated in the visual simulation that has been provided by the applicant. When viewed from Pacific Drive, the house will be no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit, and will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff believes the proposed project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. Based on the above analysis, staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in this case due to the sloping topography, and the preservation of a majority of the visual natural landform of the bluff face. Modification Permit Findings The applicant is requesting approval of a Modification Permit to encroach approximately 7 -feet 10- inches into the required 19 -foot garage setback with portions of a two -car garage. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to encroach approximately 3 -feet into 17 -foot front yard setback with an architectural entry wall element and approximately 7- feet 10- inches with a balcony feature. The two -car garage is staggered to reduce the amount of encroachment within the setback to the greatest extent possible and to provide a driveway that can accommodate parking. The balcony feature is proposed to be located on top of the northern most garage space. Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the Zoning Code requires the City to make the following findings should approval of a Modification request be desirable. 0 D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 12 A. The granting of the application 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. As stated previously, the site is encumbered with steeply sloping topography which restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff. The applicant situated the building, to the greatest extent possible, within the front portion of the lot where the slope is less steep, in order to reduce the height of the structure, to comply with the predominant line of existing development and to minimize alterations of the bluff face. The effect of relocating the proposed structure back 7 -feet 10- inches to comply with the front yard setback would result in a taller structure or additional alteration of the bluff. In addition to the sloping terrain, the front property line is not perpendicular to the side property lines, which constrains the flatter portion of the lot. The proposed residence has been designed in line with the skewed front property line; however, to help square off the front fagade which is typical of home design, the applicant has designed a small architectural entry wall element which results in the small encroachment into the front setback. Staff does not believe the balcony encroachment is necessary due to any practical difficulties associated with the property, as the applicant's views are afforded from the bluff side of the property and a large percentage of the structure is comprised of decks. The structure would continue to maintain approximately 1,074 square feet of total deck area with the elimination of this subject balcony. Therefore, staff believes this finding can be made for the proposed encroachments, with the exception of the balcony located on top of the garage. B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The two adjacent residences encroach approximately 8 -feet 7- inches (2315 Pacific Drive) and 7 -feet (2329 Pacific Drive) into the required garage setback. Both residences were granted similar Modification Permits in 1997 and in 2001. Additionally, due to the large right -of -way area behind the sidewalk, the proposed project will accommodate a clear 19- foot driveway, allowing a vehicle to park without encroaching over the sidewalk. It should be noted that a 19 -foot driveway meets the Code requirements of required parking on driveways, although not required in this case since the project provides a two -car garage. Therefore staff believes the proposed garage encroachments will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. 1, D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 13 Additionally, the entry wall encroachment is a minor architectural element which will enhance the aesthetics of the structure and square up the front facade. Although the balcony feature is not a necessary encroachment, it does complement the architecture of the structure and makes reasonable use of the garage encroachment. Therefore, both architectural features will be compatible with the varying architectural styles of the existing neighborhood. C. 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 injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The existing structure encroaches approximately 6 -feet 8- inches within the 19 -foot setback and has not proven to be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood to date, and since the proposed area of encroachment is slightly smaller in area (173 sq. ft vs. 142 sq. ft.), the proposed encroachment should continue to not prove detrimental. Additionally, the face of the garage will remain set back approximately 29 -feet from the street, providing sufficient site distance for vehicles pulling out of the garage. It should be noted that Public Works typically does not approve of vehicles parking on driveways to encroach over the public right -of -way due to possible vehicle sight distance issues and possible impingement on public walkways; however, due to the large setback from the sidewalk, the proposed garage setback will not cause these potential hazards. Additionally, there are no plans to widen Pacific Drive in the future, which could result in a substandard driveway length in the future, and neighboring structures with similar garage encroachments have not proven detrimental to date. The entry wall element is a minimal architectural encroachment and serves only to enhance the aesthetics of the structure. The encroachment should not prove to be detrimental to immediate neighbors as light, air, and access to these lots will remain given the location of the wall. Additionally, the balcony feature should not prove detrimental as it only increases the garage height by approximately 3 -feet and is proposed to be constructed of decorative wrought iron railings. In summary, with the exception finding "A" discussed above as it relates to the balcony encroachment, staff believes that each of the findings for approval can be made for the requested encroachments. Conditions of approval requiring the removal of the balcony feature have been included in the draft resolution. Environmental Review: The proposed 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 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone) since the proposed structure will replace an existing structure. 0 D'Amato Residence August 3, 2006 Page 14 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, 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 upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: If the Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for the Variance or Modification Permit request, staff suggests that the Commission either direct the applicant to reduce the height or front yard encroachments to an acceptable level and continue the item, if desired, or deny the application. Conclusion: Staff believes the findings for approval of the Variance and Modification Permit requests can be made, with the exception of the balcony encroachment, and that the design of the structure is reasonable given the topography and location of the subject property. The project, as designed, will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling that meets their needs while limiting encroachment down and alteration of the coastal bluff. Prepared by: .fir e Murillo, Associate�Planner Submitted by: ,1 ' Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director Exhibits: 1. Draft Resolution No _; findings and conditions of approval 2. Median Distance of Development 3. Stringline Comparison 4. Predominant Line of Development Analysis 5. Project Simulation 6. Existing Bluff Face Development 7. Existing Site Photographs 8. Project Plans (Includes Topographic Survey) J� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2004 -002 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2006 -072 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2319 PACIFIC DRIVE (PA 2004 -189) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Mr. and Mrs. A.J. D'Amato with respect to property located at 2319 Pacific Drive, and legally described as Portions of Block D and Portions of Abandoned Street of the Corona del Mar Tract, requesting approval of a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a Modification Permit to allow portions of a two -car garage an architectural wall element, and a balcony to encroach within the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 3, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. The application, plans, a staff report and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the property is designated Single Family Residential by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The project proposes constructing a new single - family residence, which is permitted within the General Plan and Zoning designation, and has been designed to comply with all applicable R -1 development regulations, with the exception of the requested variance for height and modification for setback encroachments ; and WHEREAS, Policy D of the Land Use Element of the General Plan requires the sitting of new buildings and structures to be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs. The project has been designed to comply with an identified predominant line of development drawn from the furthest extent from the principal structural elements of each residence across the entire unaltered bluff face. The project will maintain the existing line of development, compatible in context with neighboring residences, and will continue to preserve a large majority of the visual appearance and natural landform of the bluff face; and 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the CLUP for the following reasons: 1. The project is designed within a clear predominant line of development that has been identified using a line drawn from the furthest extent from the principal structural elements of each residence across the entire unaltered bluff face (excluding the lots to the west that take access from Bayside Drive). By maintaining development within the predominant line of development, the proposed project is sited similarly (in line) with its immediate neighbors, insuring compatibility with the neighboring residences and preserves a large majority of the visual appearance and the natural landform of the bluff face. 2. The project site is not identified by the CLUP as a public view point and Pacific Drive is not identified as a coastal view road requiring public view protection; however, the bluff and the proposed project are highly visible from Bayside Drive, from the harbor, and from across the harbor on the peninsula. With the proposed residence designed to conform to the predominate line of development, the visual appearance of the bluff as can be viewed by the public will therefore be preserved. Additionally, since a majority of the proposed development is sited on the flattest portion of the lot, the project minimizes alterations of the natural landform of the bluff face. 3. Since Corona del Mar is one of few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive residential development on bluff faces and since the particular bluff underlies a conventional subdivision that has been developed over time on a lot - by -lot basis, the CLUP permits continued development in these areas. Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 permit development on the Pacific Drive bluff faces subject to the predominant line of development. However, Policy 4.4.3 -8 specifically only allows development to occur within the predominant line of development only when no feasible alternative exists. A smaller footprint coupled with the tendency to maximize floor area could lead to cantilevered designs, a larger basement level on the upper portion of the lot, a reduced front yard or a taller building. None of these potential options are optimal. Although the project will alter 100% of the bluff face covered by the proposed footprint of the building within the predominant line of development, the improvements will minimize alteration of the bluff face as approximately 90% percent of the entire bluff face will be preserved. The project has additionally been conditioned insure the project will not contribute to further erosion of the slope requiring the implementation of a drainage plan that conveys rainwater to Pacific Drive or to the toe of the bluff within a drain pipe, and prohibiting landscaping or irrigation practices that could contribute to erosion. Lastly, the proposed project must be visually compatible with the surrounding development and the minor alterations of the bluff will not be noticed once it is completed. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 10 4. The proposed residence has been designed with a stepped foundation design and conforms with the natural contours of the site to the maximum extent feasible, while still achieving the anticipated level of floor area enjoyed by adjacent properties. 5. The subject bluff is not subject to marine erosion, but is rather located inland and stabilized by Bayside Drive. Additionally, the proposed residence will not disturb the existing vegetation or bluff face below the predominant line of development and no significant rock outcroppings exist on the site. WHEREAS, a Variance to exceed the 24 -foot height limitation has been prepared and approved, in accordance with Chapter 20.91 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: Strict application of this code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification due to the following special circumstances applicable to the property: a. The subject property is located on a bluff and is therefore encumbered by the steeply sloped topography on the southwest portion of the lot, which restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code while avoiding significant alteration of the bluff. b. A stringline developed to preserve the coastal bluff further deprives this property from achieving the maximum permitted floor area limitations. C. Neighboring residences have easily achieved the 1.5 floor area ratio limitation by constructing further down the slope 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant because: a. A significant portion of the subject property consists of steeply sloping unimproved coastal bluff. Additionally, the design of the residence and the extent of the alteration to the coastal bluff is limited to the predominate line of existing development. b. Denial of the variance would reduce the size of the residence well below the maximum allowable floor area and smaller than newly constructed houses in the area. The diminishment of floor area is a diminishment of a substantial property right, and the approval of the variance preserves this right while allowing the City to achieve its goal to reduce further alteration of the coastal bluff a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 10 C. The project as proposed works within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree possible, and preserves the applicant's ability to achieve a comparable size home with others in the neighborhood. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district because: a. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. b. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. C. If the sloped condition did not exist, the applicant could design a home within the required height limitation. d. The proposed floor area is consistent with the maximum FAR permitted by Code and with similar properties along on the bluff. e. The residence is similar in size and location to the adjacent houses. 4. The granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: a. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. b. Granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact the visual view of the bluff face as viewed from below or from across the harbor as the structure is sited within the predominate line of existing development. C. When viewed from Pacific Drive, the house will be no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit, and will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as the front of the house closest to Pacific Drive conforms to the height limit. d. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. 5M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 10 WHEREAS, the proposed Modification Permit for the encroachment of portions of the garage and an architectural entry wall element into the front yard setbacks have been prepared and approved, in accordance with Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: The Modification Permit is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code because: a. The site is encumbered with steeply sloping topography which makes it difficult to adhere to the front setbacks specified in the Zoning Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff, which is a goal of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. b. The applicant situated the building, to the greatest extent possible, within the front portion of the lot where the slope is less steep, in order to reduce the height of the structure and to comply with the predominant line of existing development and to minimize alterations of the bluff face. C. The effect of relocating the proposed structure back 7 -feet 10- inches to comply with the front yard setback would result in a taller structure when viewed from the west, or result in additional alteration of the bluff, as it would push the residence further down the bluff. d. In addition to the sloping terrain, the front property line is not perpendicular to the side property lines, thereby reducing the area of possible construction within the less constrained portions of the lot. e. The proposed residence has been designed in line with the skewed front property line; however, to help square off the front fagade which is typical of home design, the applicant has designed a small architectural entry wall element which results in the small encroachment into the front setback. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood because: a. The two adjacent residences encroach approximately 8 -feet 7- inches (2315 Pack Drive) and 7 -feet (2329 Pacific Drive) into the required garage setback. b. Due to the large right -of -way area behind the sidewalk, the proposed project will accommodate a clear 19 -foot driveway, allowing a vehicle to park without encroaching over the sidewalk. , .1✓ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 10 C. The entry wall encroachment is a minor architectural element which will enhance the aesthetics of the structure and square up the front fagade and will be compatible with the varying architectural styles of the existing neighborhood. The granting of this Modification Permit 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 because: a. The existing structure currently encroaches 6 -feet 8- inches into the required 19 -foot garage setback and has not proven to be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood to date, and since the proposed area of encroachment is slightly smaller in area (173 sq. ft. vs. 142 sq. ft.), the proposed encroachment should continue to not prove detrimental. The face of the garage will remain setback approximately 29 -feet from the street, providing sufficient site distance for vehicles pulling out of the garage and will not impact vehicle sight distance or impinge on public walkways. Additionally, there are no plans to widen Pack Drive in the future and neighboring structures with similar garage encroachments have not proven detrimental to date. C. The entry wall element is a minimal architectural encroachment and serves only to enhance the aesthetics of the structure. The encroachment should not prove to be detrimental to immediate neighbors as light, air, and access to theses lots will remain given the location of the wall. WHEREAS, the proposed Modification Permit for the balcony encroachment into the front yard setback shall be denied in accordance with Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: The balcony encroachment is not necessary due to any practical difficulties associated with the property, as the applicant's views are afforded from the bluff side of the property and a large percentage of the structure is comprised of decks. 2. The structure would continue to maintain approximately 1,074 square feet of total deck area with the elimination of this balcony. WHEREAS, the proposed 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 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone) since the proposed structure will replace an existing structure; and aA City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 7 of 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance No. 2004 -002 and Modification Permit No. 2006 -072, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A.' 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 in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 2006. AYES: NOES: BY: Jeffrey Cole, Chairman BY: Robert Hawkins, Secretary 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2004-002 MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2006-072 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan, and elevations stamped with the date of this meeting, except as noted in the following conditions. The balcony proposed to be located on the garage encroachment shall be eliminated and is not permitted. 3. The garages shall maintain a minimum setback of 11 -feet 2- inches from the front property line and shall be staggered in conformance with the approved plans. Related roof overhangs may encroach a maximum of one additional foot. 4. The entry wall element as depicted on the approved plans shall maintain a minimum setback of 14 -feet from the front property line. Related roof overhangs may encroach a maximum of one additional foot. Two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site within a garage for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times 6. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 7. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be provided within the proposed residence, in conformance with Building and Fire Code requirements. 9. 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. 10.The existing private wall fronting the site and located within the public right -of- way shall be removed. 11. The new driveway flares (top of X's) shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 -feet from the nearest tree, power pole, or any other above ground obstructions. 12. The abandoned driveway approach shall be plugged per City Standard STD -165- L. M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 9 of 10 13.The new driveway approach shall be constructed per City Standard STD -162 -L and shall comply with City Council Policy L -2. 14. The new driveway slope shall comply with City Standard STD - 160 -L -C. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with Council Policy G -1 and apply for tree reforestation for the existing street tree proposed for relocation. A request shall be submitted to the General Services Director for consideration by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. 16.If the reforestation request is not approved by the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, the project shall be redesigned and will require an amendment to this subject Variance and Modification Permit and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 17. All public improvements shall be constructed, if required, in accordance with applicable Ordinances and the Public Works Department requirements. 18. An encroachment permit shall be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way. 19. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 20.Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code, unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 21. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City- adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 22. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a geotechnical report shall be submitted with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure that the project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the report, as well as additional requirements, if any, imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department. 23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a drainage plan shall be approved that conveys rainwater to Pacific Drive or to the toe of the bluff within a drain pipe to reduce the erosion of the bluff face. �I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 10 of 10 24. Landscaping and irrigation practices that could contribute to the erosion of the slope shall be prohibited. 25.Variance No. 2004 -002 and Modification Permit No. 2006 -072 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specked in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 0 Exhibit 2 Median Distance of Development Exhibit 3 Stringline Comparison 13 Exhibit 4 Predominant Line of Development Analysis 3-1 Exhibit 5 Visual Simulation LA Visual Simulations Carlile Coatsworth Architects, Inc. 43 I Exhibit 6 Existing Bluff Face Development 4 [A Wy�Ill WR Ayx MV �� \ � V 0 � V 0 � V E. x LLI 0 x LU � Exhibit 7 Existing Site Photographs N tixl M �. �:. ,� �� -'�++ w. „� Exhibit 8 Project Plans (Includes Topographical Survey) �1 I N U N 0 O o /v+ m d L L g7 Se 9Rm o p�p�m3 iR��m a 5l G N� ' " 6 0 O o /v+ mNaWi ovedeo� ovwoa O aauapisa� OIEWV,Q Q 6 ZI a a g7 Se 9Rm o p�p�m3 iR��m a 5l M i ' " 6 V xRr MW as - - mNaWi ovedeo� ovwoa O aauapisa� OIEWV,Q Q 6 ZI �g? aV a a g7 Se 9Rm o p�p�m3 iR��m a 5l M i �g? aV a a g7 J ' " 6 FlSSR} �� s E `A Y /1 J @jl�Jf(L m I !fia4 ?W ,'10- $}41Sis E` yi Q3 a§ 5£Yid31G! $k § ypp gjj A }EPAA IiP }PNS z:FiRF.aa.o3EL }tl29 �:.uiE l:9kkQF 2tA4��6 �ie $Eep 98840��k3a6�k1$�� F qaqg. �aqq} gggg �yyapypyy� [[$$ �yy 993i�P44@i g$6$t�h1�4!$ ?F }$3@ @d(€ s$ 4aat1 €��s15�$41}si����d94 }S ..e .�z § § §s's §: ?es1S3,� /GP }F9iYkP 9 a� §a,;,@g S s °a•! f eta lStlS ?3sEl9��$i�3PO$$�ss@a? P8c�4 Aii.an:9S: @F94i;: ri:pt'irR E4 +d: fee +�aYa } @ih5(:CE:d gvE2[!`:k2tl: @a 1 5 39 p= kei ae S� P @9las 93t�n:.es8e3s`assaew'Etladeiez. €dne i ¢ d:4viix:Sc @$439 #v!�atctL8A8 }3t' +t QI f s $se ; $R! !,! � ! \ ] \\\ / ) E Q\� ))§ • f� `| Oil ! . < | ) k / $ ( W f eye !j !/ /) | !9 EG ) \) k nm . 6 _, _, Qf� � q G %%@7WVIo § �! nm . 6 2® d \ »! ),) \) `,1@ A « »: � !!h !m! U ! | \ |! \ #!' |; m > :. �( §( { \) | ;\ )i ))&!§ § m q:k) a LO\ _ W__o qGoua@mwv.o 4 a LO\ a r \ ~ N �k\ a 9\� O pyO 4 (,| \\ / ;$ ) t :§ e \)) / � p `(!,� ! p ! q '90H HM 9 S e a |§§(q§|!/ §§»!(m mi(§] ƒ§ - / # Gou a aN olewv,a ffis � §( � \ \ § B 2 ; | !§ E \!§) \ |(§ \ |, .m ! {) • | |� |!!![54 )(&!£@ mk\ §4 I � ~ ~ ~-� M 8` ti �€5 s g s 3 3SS ! viraoaiT✓o'av oaoo bnlb o�po8d GICZ we aouapsaa ojewy,a 9 a ] ®e4 V a a al aNA k� VINMOJIWO'HNWl3OVNONOO @�Rese gY 1j enNp VJped BLEZ � aouansaa oiewy,a a ea as I� U4 tlIN210jMO 'EiV'N l ' VNOiIOJ d BLEL N ci m a 7 S 3 x A - - - --A Wl o vuiaod wa 'avw �3a vNOao� =� 1�Afi ay ova oJ!oed am 0 aouapisaa olewya f �s I, I s 1 a e i i r 6 � else s4�t� �� 79 Er- ,T�— �I ,I - - -r a c r 1 1I 1I I L- -L I I I 's C VINHOdIWO 'HVW 130 VNOHOO �r enuO OMOed 61rZ r Mau imm oouapisa oleuay,d a I �r i �I a� e Y Mau imm i i �I a� e Y oVgo ai(eie) 'gut 'bulddoyy �? bUlAanjns� 3ONKISI�J Old Wd (] 3Hl d0216 VIN80311YO '3 VON310 NO N N3 00Z 3lme , N31 We SNVO0 3 l09 aYn 130 rA w 3h d 6lfZ a�I W f¢ �Q .sz sz YI Q U g Q �I I e I U 4 I I I I I I I I I I_ I I� I I la Iq la I` I� Is I' IG 154 I I I . I la It I$ I I a�gb 9�•xsw Ep6�>f ,t N --or M�� 9 -9S107 S 107 I I I I f a 4pf 6i 51 ag 4i'61 I 61107 y�- `i f 1, -3 ,/ & 0 yh 6 ea a b leg 't6 pg pp�� 8t h j t y 6�a tt 6 �a dt 48y yy 6F� y ti iXy7aV:y�i yE,thpa6 t 9y �p t. •�g��Q o @ y� 88rr����e��yytetT44 a�pp a�;�y�gp�B4, ha 4 g�g��� a' � � 6� 99elEQ943�68et��ed � �6 fS6ttctta � i to ta�tA f 107 b d e� U b M 00 -$ !b SOd S N8 w NVPV 730 VNOa00 30 dVW I t_6sta'+a s w to Z 107 > 1107 .szQ ,sz 5 Q LLJ I U I 6i Qid I� �A I �t ,i Eh i m .es t� iaa 9 i i g� @ E