Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCircle Residence (PA2003-006) 3415 Ocean BlvdCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirez (&citv.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Circle Residence 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 (PA2003 -006) Agenda Item: 3 January 6, 2005 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette Architecture for Jan and Doug Circle, property owners This project was continued from December 8, 2004. Discussion at that prior meeting focused on the location of the proposed residence in relation to several "stringlines" that were used for design purposes with both the previously approved plan and the proposed plan. The Strinaline The use of a stringline is used by the Coastal Commission in their analysis and permitting of projects on coastal bluffs. Its use is analytical in nature and is not regulatory. In other words, it is not an established standard and it is not even an adopted guideline, even though many in the community believe it is given how the Coastal Commission applies it through consideration of individual projects. As noted in the previous report, a stringline was used by the applicant for design purposes with the prior approved plan with the hope that it would ease the review process with both the City and the Coastal Commission. With that prior approval, the method by which the stringlines were drawn was not specifically evaluated by staff or the Planning Commission. The stringlines did assist the City in evaluating the position of the approved project in relation to the abutting buildings. It also provided a clear sense that the proposed project was comparable in size, height and location to its neighbors. New LCP Policies The December 81h staff report marked the first instance that a project was compared with any of the newly adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP) policies. This was done for Circle Residence January 6, 2005 Page 2 informational purposes only since the LCP policies have not been certified by the Coastal Commission. Staff did not intend the discussion to become as important a consideration as it became. Nevertheless, the applicable LCP policies use the term "predominate line of development" as a limit to further encroachment on developed coastal bluffs. Staff is considering several methods of implementing this term and a stringline is one method, but it has its drawbacks. Staff is leaning toward using the median developed depth of 4 to 6 abutting lots as a limit to development. This concept, along with other alternatives including the stringline concept, is presently being studied by staff. Applying any particular standard at this time would be premature as they have not been evaluated by the LCP Committee or Planning Commission and they have not been adopted as part of the broader LCP implementation plan. It is important to emphasize that the subject application is a variance to building height and the location of the building is only relevant as it affects its height. Additionally, the findings for Variance approval do not specifically require a determination of conformity with the General Plan or the LCP Land Use Plan, and therefore the discussion of whether or not the proposed project conforms to a stringline is not entirely germane. Height Variance The proposed project appears to have a height of approximately 37 feet 9 inches from existing grade and 45 feet from finished grade measured from the base of the retaining wall to the top of the highest roof feature as depicted on the west elevation on Sheet A- 4 of the proposed plan. However, because of the site topography and location of the existing pad, the main ridge of the proposed residence is approximately 32 feet high at a location of approximately 26 feet from the front property lines. According to Building Department records, the adjoining properties at 3401 and 3425 Ocean Boulevard have similar ridge heights that occur at approximately 22 and 25 feet from their respective front property lines. The north and south elevations shown on Sheet A -5 of the proposed plans depict the lines of natural grade on the sides of the property, corresponding height limit and portions of the proposed residence that exceed the height limit. It should be noted that the project also includes a second floor deck that exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 4.5 feet. This deck and the majority of the second floor are the only features that exceed the 24 -foot height limit. "Story Poles" The adjacent neighbor to the west erected on their property three horizontal beams depicting the horizontal projection of the decks proposed by the applicant on their lot. The neighbor represents them to be accurate, but there is no way to verify the accuracy and they are a bit misleading in that they are not on the subject property and a true representation was not created. Staff has a picture of the installation that will be shown Circle Residence January 6, 2005 Page 3 at the hearing. The applicant elected to erect a vertical PVC pipe to show the vertical and horizontal location of the building. Again, there is no way to independently verify the accuracy of the display. Staff must point out that both displays were voluntary and were not directed by staff since the Planning Commission retains that privilege per previous determinations made by the Commission several years ago. The project plans clearly show that the proposed building and decks will further encroach within the peripheral view of the two adjacent properties. The Commission must determine whether or not it represents a significant detriment to warrant modification or denial of the project since this consideration directly relates to the required findings for approval of a Variance. Summary As submitted in the previous staff report and resolution, staff believes the findings for approval of the variance can be made for the following reasons: The sloping topography of the subject property creates a relatively narrow buildable depth and the proposed design complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. 2. The proposed design is similar in size and scale to existing homes on similar sized lots in the vicinity. 3. The variance request will not adversely impact public views. 4. The variance request will not be detrimental to surrounding private properties since adjoining properties will retain a vast majority of a nearly 180 degree view. Although staff believes that the findings for project approval can be made and is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights, there is a fair argument that approval of the variance for the second floor deck may not be necessary to preserve a substantial property right. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conclude a public hearing and consider the following options: Approve Amendment No. 1 to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within the staff report and Draft Planning Commission Resolution dated December 8, 2004. A variant of this alternative can be taken should the Commission determine that the findings can be made to approve most of the Circle Residence January 6, 2005 Page 4 proposed dwelling but that the findings cannot be made to approve the second floor deck over - height as designed. 2. Further modify the proposed project. Staff would suggest a continuance of sufficient length for the applicant to redesign the project pursuant to the Commission's direction. 3. Deny the requested amendment to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006). Prepared by: Gregg 9. Ramirez, Associa a Planner Submitted by: " Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director