HomeMy WebLinkAboutYu-Chien Liao - PA2005-292 - 15 Vista TramontoCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 5
August 3, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3209, jmu rillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2005 -135 (PA 2005 -292)
15 Vista Tramonto
APPELLANT &
APPLICANT: Yu -Chien Liao
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the May 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting at the
request of the applicant to allow them additional time for preparation and to consult with
an attorney. The Commission unanimously agreed to continue the item to this agenda.
As of preparing this report, the applicant has not provided staff with any new information
to consider.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, and uphold and
affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny Modification Permit No. 2005-
135. This action will require the property owner to either remove the nonconforming
walls, pilasters and gate, or obtain a building permit to reconstruct the walls, pilasters,
and gate to conform to the applicable development regulations of the County Zoning
Code and Newport Coast Planned Community District.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Jm0he Murillo, Associate Planner
EXHIBITS
PAL66- LL g=
Patricia L. Temple, tanning Director
May 18, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2006
Regular Meeting - 6:30p.m.
R1
INDEX
ROLL CALL
ommissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all
resent.
TAFF PRESENT:
haron Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
atricia L. Temple, Planning Director
aron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager
Dan Campagnolo, GIS Analyst
Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner
finger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
(wood Tescher, City Consultant from EIP
arlton Waters, City Consultant from Urban Crossroads
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
L/Is. Temple noted that the Planning Department had received two awards from the
range County American Planning Association Chapter. The LCP Coastal Land Use
Plan received the Outstanding Comprehensive Planning (Small Jurisdiction) Award and
he Sign Code received the Outstanding Planning Implementation (Small Jurisdiction)
ward.
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 12, 2006.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM N0.1
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 4 2006.
Minutes
Approved
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected.
R1
yes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel
Noes:
None
bsent:
None
bstain:
Henn
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: Yu -Chien Liao
ITEM NO. 2
15 Vista Tramonto
PA2005 -292
Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of a Modification Permit to construct a wrought
Continue to
iron gate (8 -feet tall), combination block wall and wrought iron fence (overall 6- to 7 -feet
August 3, 2006
all) and related pilasters (7 -feet tall) that will encroach 7 feet into the required 10 -foot front
and setback where the Zoning Code limits that height to a maximum of 3 -feet 6- inches.
s. Temple reported that the applicant has requested another continuance to allow time
or her attorney to be present as he is not available tonight. They have requested this item
e heard June 22nd. The City Attorney's office believes that we should continue this item.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to June 22nd.
ubstitute motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item to August
rd following consideration of all General Plan issues.
ollowing a brief discussion it was decided to continue this item to August 3, 2006.
yes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn
oes:
None
bsent:
None
bstain:
None
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 2
May 18, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2005 -135 (PA 2005 -292)
15 Vista Tramonto
APPELLANT &
APPLICANT: Yu -Chien Liao
BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2006, the Zoning Administrator denied Modification Permit No. 2005-
135 requesting the retention of over height walls, pilasters and gate within the required
front yard setback of a property located at 15 Vista Tramonto.
The applicant specifically requested a modification to allow the retention of an as -built
wrought iron gate (8 -feet tali), combination block wall and wrought iron fence (overall 6-
to 7 -feet tall) and related pilasters (7 -feet tall) that encroach 7 to 9 feet into the required
10 -foot front yard setback where the Zoning Code limits such heights to a maximum of
3 -feet 6- inches. The site plan for the proposed development is attached as Exhibit 1 and
photographs of the as -built development have been attached as Exhibit 2.
After reviewing the applicant's request, the Zoning Administrator determined that the
applicant did not provide adequate justification to support the encroachment and cited
several findings supporting the denial of the request. The denial letter has been
attached as Exhibit 3.
The subject gate and walls were constructed in 2003 without the benefit of proper
building permits or review. The applicant claims that prior to constructing the gates and
walls, she tried to obtain approval from the County of Orange (the permitting jurisdiction
at the time); however, she contends that County staffed indicated that her project did
not require a variance (staff cannot verify this statement). The applicant admits that she
then neglected to verify that proper building permits were pursued by her contractor who
constructed the project.
On February 27, 2006, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision.
b
MD 2005 -135 Appeal
May 18, 2006
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Appeal
The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the application
and approve the original request. The appellant contends that the findings required to
approve the modification can be made and provided the following justification with her
application:
• The current 10 -foot setback code requirement for front yards does not allow
enough space for building a wall(fence on the property.
• There are quite a few properties in the neighborhood that have the same or
similar settings of gate and fence. The heights and finishes of wall, pilasters, and
fence are compatible with the architecture and blends in.
• The extension of side walls is preferable to neighbors on both sides because it
provides more privacy for them. For the front gate and fence, there is a 3 -foot
planting area along the sidewalk to provide a buffer with pedestrians.
The applicant's original letter of justification outlines the arguments in support of the
above conclusions. This letter is attached as Exhibit 4.
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 prior
decision or limited to the issues raised on appeal.
Property Characteristics
The lot is relatively rectangular in shape (with the exception of the skew at the rear) and
it measures 10,650 square feet in area. The lot averages approximately 127 feet in
depth and 85 feet in width. The existing house is setback from the front property line
approximately 44 -feet 4- inches and the garage is setback approximately 11 -feet from
the front property line. The garage is a side entry 3 -car garage and vehicular access is
accommodated through a 16 -foot wide driveway and a 32 -foot wide motorcourt.
Single family properties are located directly adjacent to the north and south of the
property and association common area is located directly east and west of the site.
Zoning
The subject property is located within the Newport Coast Planned Community District
(NPC -PC Planning Area 2A -1). The Newport Coast Planned Community text contains
the development standards for planning areas within the zoning district and requires a
MD 2005 -135 Appeal
May 18, 2006
Page 4
minimum 10 -foot building setback from any property line abutting a public or private
street. Accessory structures, including fences and walls, are subject to the development
standards contained within Section 7 -9 -137 of the Orange County Zoning Code. The
OC Zoning Code specifically limits the height of fences and walls within the front
setback area bordering a street to a maximum height of 3'h -feet.
Analysis
Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the
following three findings to be made for the approval of a Modification Permit:
1. 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
front 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 the lot is
fiat and the front property line is straight and does not create a unique difficulty.
Adequate space exists within the buildable area of this lot and a 10 -foot setback
is a minimal restriction given the large size of the lot. It is therefore staffs belief
that this finding can not 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. The residence is located within a gated community and a majority
of the residences do not have separate entry gates and front yard walls. There
are a few residences in the neighborhood that have constructed walls and gates
which comply with the height restrictions within the 10 -foot setback (Exhibit 5).
However, approximately six properties in the neighborhood have constructed
walls and gates that do not comply with the height restrictions; one in particular at
24 Via Burrone has constructed an entry gate system very similar to the
applicant's request (Exhibit 6).
Staff has been told that the original builder of the neighborhood controlled the
early Homeowner's Architectural Committee and approved several of the
i
MD 2005 -135 Appeal
May 18, 2006
Page 5
nonconforming walls not knowing of the 3 112 -foot height restriction. Additionally,
staff has attempted to locate building permits and plans for the construction of
the walls and gates; however, the County has only been able to transfer and
locate building permits with vague descriptions of the walls. Staff is unsure
whether the permits include the construction of the entry gates and walls or
whether they are for the property line walls surrounding the side and rear of the
lots. The County, to date, has been unable to locate the actual building plans
associated with these permits and therefore the staff has been unable to verify
whether or not the nonconforming walls were ever reviewed or inspected by the
County.
Staff has been informed that the current Homeowner's Association Architectural
Committee is now comprised of actual homeowner's in the neighborhood and
has maintained a position to not approve walls or gates that do not comply with
the 3 %: -foot height restrictions within the 10 -foot front yard setback. Additionally,
they had originally advised the applicant to not construct the wall without
requesting a modification from the City, yet the applicant continued to construct
the wall, even after they property management company issued a "cease and
stop work notice. A letter received from a homeowner in the neighborhood (and
member of the Architectural Committee) has been attached as Exhibit 7 and
summarizes the history of the walls in the community and his opposition to the
project.
Staff believes the as -built entry gate system is not compatible with the existing
development of the other residences on Vista Tramonto or residences in the
neighborhood. Compatibility to similar nonconforming gates and walls in the
neighborhood is not adequate justification for the development, and staff is
unsure whether the County adequately reviewed the development of these
structures. It is therefore staffs belief that this finding can not be made.
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.
The Zoning Administrator determined that that the granting of the application for
walls and gates closer to the front property line than other properties in the
neighborhood would adversely affect the safety of persons residing in the
neighborhood and that it would be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious
to the properties in the neighborhood that generally comply with zoning
regulations because the approval could set a precedent for the approval of
similar requests. Although the gates and upper portion of walls were constructed
of wrought iron for increased visibility, staff believes the location of the fence and
tall solid pilasters in close proximity to the sidewalk creates an unnecessary
safety hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists as vehicles pull out of the driveway.
Additionally, site distance
driveways is also reduced.
made.
Environmental Review
MD 2005 -135 Appeal
May 18, 2006
Page 6
visibility for the neighboring residents exiting their
It is therefore staffs belief that this finding can not be
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 Hall and on the city website.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold and
affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny Modification Permit No. 2005-
135. This action will require the property owner to either remove the nonconforming
walls, pilasters and gate, or obtain a building permit to reconstruct the walls, pilasters,
and gate to conform to the applicable development regulations of the County Zoning
Code and Newport Coast Planned Community District.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has the option to:
1. Approve the applicant's original Modification Permit request.
2. Modify and approve the applicant's Modification Permit request as deemed
necessary.
Prepared by:
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
A b"I * aw�
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
0�
MD 2005 -135 Appeal
May 18, 2006
Page 7
EXHIBITS
1. As -Built Plans
2. Project Photographs
3. Modification Denial Letter
4. Applicant's Justification Letter
5, Photographs of Conforming Walls
6. Photographs of Nonconforming Walls
7. Letter of Opposition
EXHIBIT 1
As -Built Plans
\o4
i
\,.Q
EXHIBIT 2
Project Photgraphs
ts>
}
r
5�
i
f
� f
'i4ffir
}
a
4
RAY
Y '1
y}44
NE
1
a'
i
'i4ffir
i
EXHIBIT 3
Modification Denial Letter
91
ft
February 13, 2006
Yu -Chien Liao
MODIFICATION NO. MD2006435
(PA2005 -292)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 32663
(949) 6443200 FAX (949) 644 -3229
c/o Land Vision Landscape Architecture
305 N. Coast Highway, Suite T
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206
Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date
Application No: Modification Permit No. MD2005 -135
(PA2005 -292)
Applicant: Yu -Chien Liao
Address of
Property Involved: 15 Vista Tramonto
Legal Description: Lot 17, Tract 14070
Request Denied in its Entirety
Request to permit the retention of a wrought iron gate (8 -feet tall), combination
block wall & wrought iron fence (overall 6- to 7 -feet tall) and related pilasters (7 -feet
tall) that encroach 7 to 9 feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback where the
Zoning Code limits that height to a maximum of 3 -feet 6- inches. The property is
located in the PC (Newport Coast Planned Community, Planning Area 2A -1)
District.
On February 13. 2006, the Zoning Administrator disapproved the subject application and
made the following conditions and findings for denial:
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
The Zoning Administrator determined, in this case, the proposal would be
detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood. The
applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Newport Coast Planned
Community development regulations.
2. The applicant did not provide reasonable justification demonstrating that the
granting of this application was necessary due to practical difficulties associated
with the property. In addition, there was not adequate justification as to why the
strict application of the Newport Ridge/Newport Coast Planned Community
District regulations and the Zoning Code results in physical hardships
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of those codes.
3. The justification submitted did not adequately address why the encroaching
structure is more compatible than the wall and gates in a conforming location.
The Zoning Administrator determined that the location of the as -built structures is
not compatible with other walls and gates constructed on other properties and
development in the neighborhood and in particular on the same street (Vista
Tramonto).
4. The Zoning Administrator determined that the granting of the application for walls
and gates, closer to the front property line than on other properties in the
neighborhood, would adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of the property and would be detrimental to the
general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood that
generally comply with the zoning regulations.
5. The approval of the proposed could set a precedent for the approval of other
similar requests which could be detrimental to the neighborhood.
6. There is no justification for allowing the
since adequate space exists within the
of the walls, pilasters and gate.
proposed wall and gate encroachments,
buildable area of the site for construction
Residential sites adjoining the subject property generally maintain the required
front yard setback.
CONDITION
Within 30 days after the effective date of this action, property owner or authorized
representative shall obtain a building permit to remove or reconstruct the walls,
pilasters and gate to conform to the requirements of the development regulations
of the Zoning Code and Newport Coast Planned Community District.
APPEAL PERIOD
The Zoning Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by
5pm on February 27, 2006. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of
570.00. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at
949.644.3200.
February 13, 2006 n
1AUSERSIPLNIShared\PNs1PAs - 20051PA2005- 2921MD2005 -135 Deny.doc 0
Page 2
CLdtJ.&
Zoning Adroinistratorvlalvier S. Garcia, AICP
JSG:jjb
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Applicant's letter of justification
Letter in opposition
c: Cynthia and Kyle Yin (property owners)
15 Vista Tramonto
Newport Coast, CA 92657
" A. Trider of 21 Via Palladio appeared in opposition. No appearances in support.
February 13, 2006 rr��
1:1USERSIPLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20051PA2005- 2921MD2005 -135 Deny.doc
Page 3
Modification Permit No. MD2005 -135
PA2005 -292
15 Vista Tramonto
a�
EXHIBIT 4
Applicant's Justification Letter
aA
Cynthia and Kyle Yin
15 Vista Tramonto
Newport Coast, CA 92657
February 13, 2006
Attn: Jay Garcia
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
Newport Beach, CA
Re: Modification Application- Justifications for the built Gate and Wall/ Fence
One of the uniqueness of houses in this community is that they are relatively larger scale. We think
installing larger driveway with gate and wall/ fence will enhance the grandness of the architecture,
which we can see by the high percentage of homes with vehicular access gate and wall/ fence along
the perimeters of these properties. After analyzing the elevations and visual effects of all design
alternatives, we think that the gate and wall/ fence being pushed out further will be more
proportionally sound. There were afew examples in the neighborhood that were completed earlier
had the same opinion (See attached photos). Regarding the setback issues, the shortest distance
from our house to the properly line is 15'. In order to have minimum 3' walkway to the sideyard
and 2' minimum planting space along the building, we only have approximately 9' to provide more
planting space after the wall/ fence is built. The approach we chose is to leave enough space for tree
planting between the wall/ fence and the house vs. the wall/ fence to the sidewalk This way we
actually reduce the possibility of tree roots damaging the public sidewalk On the other hand we
think the approach of low wall with fence is still more friendly, inviting and connected to the
community than a 6' high solid wall with 10' setback In terns of safety concem, we also think the
low wall with fence is better because it provides more visibility for the pedestrian and the driver to
see each other before coming through the gate. One other technical reason we have the gate and
wallf fence encroached further into the setback zone is allow enough tuming radius into the first
garage door.
Our neighbors on both sides also prefer to extend the sidewall out as much as possible because of
privacy issue. During the design period, they had expressed more needs of privacy than we did In
fact, to this day they still have been requesting us to plant more tall trees along the back/ side yard
perimeter wall so to provide more screening. I propose to use more softscape if necessary instead of
tearing down the hardscapes as they way of modifying existing condition.
Sincerely,
Y 'en Liao
EXHIBIT 5
Photographs of Conforming Walls
a°`
I
� /� \
:.
.\
\ . : ,«< a
IR"R
wli�
14
Uli
Al
EXHIBIT 6
Photographs of Nonconforming Walls
9
�Csµ�
'v
lh
5�
F
'L
JY,
4� N`
Yy Y
`C
1
MI
W
M
t
kS�y
ns
x
y;
w
t
e
fi
co AII
A
V
W
�
O
K y
CL
}
O
h
2
la
M a
w
CD
W
mom
Q
E
m
OS
2
d'
N
O
E
!0
x
W
cm
C
C•.i
J
w
F(
C
0
1
c
0
Z
�Csµ�
'v
�A fi
>
4� N`
Yy Y
`C
t i
M
�r� i•"
o
co AII
CL
w
CD
2
O
C•.i
J
F(
1
C
J
OS
`= r
N_
f,4
m
a
E
m
k
W
�
x
C
E
w
C
O
U
c
o
Z
�y
EXHIBIT 7
Letter of Opposition
,
�f- .zz9 1� -� y- 61
i
�1
1O 'd ltd 80:10 NOW 9002 -90 -939
I
r d
s
EO 'd
/ d
d
f
Wd 60;10 NOW 900E-90 -M
3�
U
�f
� A
PE Gp�Pp,P�B�RG1a
C bF NEwP�R
�Jt O,�`121`Z1314�5 ,6
wiffirlsomr
r
f
J'.
60 'd Nd 60 :I0 NON 9002 -90 -su