HomeMy WebLinkAboutCircle Residence (PA2003-006)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3219, gramirezO -city newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Circle Residence
3415 Ocean Boulevard
Variance No. 2003 -001
(PA2003 -006)
Agenda Item: 8
December 9, 2004
and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004
APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette Architecture for Jan and Doug Circle, property owners
REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of an amendment to an approved Variance and
Modification Permit that allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot
height limit and subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into the required 10 -foot
front yard setback. The applicant is requesting changes to the building design that
include an increase to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The
applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Commission approved the Variance and Modification Permit request at their
meeting of April 3, 2003. The applicant at that time was Curt Ensign. The approval
allows the construction of a 6,100 square foot square foot, 4 -story, single - family
dwelling with a roof deck. The approval permits the height of the building to be
approximately 34 -feet above the existing grade at the highest point on the bluff side,
with an overall height from the approved finished grade of approximately 40 feet. The
approval requires the new construction to comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb
height limit. Additionally, the approval included a Modification Permit that allows three
subterranean levels to encroach 10 -feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback.
The application was subsequently called for review by the City Council who upheld the
decision of Planning Commission at their meeting of April 22, 2004.
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 2
3415 Ocean Boulevard
and
Current
Development:
Single - Family Residence
To the north:
Single Family Residences
To the east
Single Family Residences
To the south:
Single Family Residences
To the west:
Corona Del Mar State Beach
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 3
DISCUSSION
The review of the original request focused on four issues, the required findings to
approve a variance, the required findings to approve a modification permit, potential
impacts to public views, and conformance with General Plan Policy D relating to coastal
bluff preservation.
Site Overview:
The subject property was developed with a two level single - family residence and
attached garage in 1956. The dwelling is approximately 10 feet in height at the front
(Ocean Blvd.) side and 20 feet high on the bluff side, and conforms to all current
development regulations.
The subject property is a coastal bluff that slopes away from Ocean Boulevard down to
the unimproved portion of Breakers Drive and Corona Del Mar State Beach. The upper
third of the site is developed with the existing residence. Access to the property is off
Ocean Boulevard via a narrow access road located within the Ocean Boulevard right -of-
way. An existing path /stairway winds down the coastal bluff to the beach. The remaining
portion of the bluff is heavily landscaped.
The Subject property is zoned R -1 and has the following development regulations:
Lot Size: 7,800 square feet (65 x 120)
Required Setbacks:
Front: 10 feet
Sides: 4 feet
Rear: 10 feet
Buildable Area: 5,700 square feet (57 x 100)
Maximum Floor Area: 8,550 square feet (5,700 x 1.5)
Height Limit: 24' flat roof /mid -point (29' ridge) and no portion of structure
may exceed height of curb at Ocean Boulevard
Project Overview:
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. No roof deck is proposed as part of the new design. The proposed project has
the following characteristics:
Proposed Project Features:
Basement:
2,262 square feet
First Floor:
1,187 square feet
Second Floor:
1,097 square feet
Garage (at First Floor):
360 square feet
Total:
4,906 square feet
Proposed height above existing grade (front):
Proposed height above existing grade (bluff side):
Proposed height above finished grade (bluff side):
Proposed height of second floor deck:
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 4
24 feet
37 feet 9 inches
45 feet (From base of
retaining wall)
28.5 feet from EG (approx.)
The Variance and Modification Permit approved by the Planning Commission allows the
construction of a new 4- level, single family residence with the following characteristics.
Note that the approved basement level is entirely subterranean.
Approved Project Features:
Upper Level:
1,260 square feet
Mid - Level:
877 square feet
Lower Level:
1,887 square feet
Basement Level:
1,603 square feet
Garage (at Mid - Level):
473 square feet
Total:
6,100 square feet
Roof deck:
483 square feet
Approved height above existing grade (front): 24 feet
Approved height above existing grade (bluff side): 34 feet
Approved height above finished grade (bluff side): 40 feet
Analysis:
The applicant requests amendments to Condition Nos. 1 and 16 of the approved
Variance and Modification Permit.
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan,
floor plans and elevations dated March 11, 2003 with the exception of any revisions
required by the following conditions.
16. No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or building stringline as
established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. This
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 5
regulation includes slab on grade decks and patios, which may not exceed the deck
stringline.
The project has been redesigned resulting in a slight decrease in building mass when
viewed from the street but additional building mass and height when viewed from the
bluff side. The revised plan also increases the overall depth of the building and.decks,
causing them to encroach beyond the imaginary "stringline" as depicted on the
approved plan. The front yard encroachment has been reduced to a one floor
subterranean encroachment of 10 feet rather than the three subterranean floors
previously approved.
If the proposed residence was constructed in compliance with the height regulations,
the entire second floor living area and exterior decks and portions of the first floor living
areas would have to be eliminated or redesigned to become compliant.
In their project justification letter, the applicants point out that the "Municipal Code does
not recognize a stringline for the buildings or decks as a limit of construction" and that
the actual setback is 10 feet. Although they are correct in both instances, the Planning
Commission used the stringline, as provided by the original applicant, as an analytical
tool for the comparison and analysis of the encroachment of the approved structure on
the coastal bluff.
In the case of the prior approval, a stringline was drawn between the buildings and
decks located on the adjacent properties located at 3401 and 3425 Ocean Boulevard.
Since these properties have the same width and depth (60'x120) of the subject
property, using the existing development on those sites is appropriate to assist in
establishing a predominant line of development. The staff and Planning Commission
used the following features and their depths as measured from the front property line to
develop a stringline as a guide for the design of the approved project:
3401 Ocean Boulevard:
Enclosed Portion of Dwelling: 34 feet
Corner of Deck: 40 feet
3425 Ocean Boulevard:
Enclosed Portion of Dwelling: 40 feet
Corner of Deck: 44 feet
The result was two diagonal "stringlines," one drawn from deck to deck and one drawn
from enclosed dwelling to enclosed dwelling. The approved project allows the dwelling
to be located 37 feet from the front property line and related decks to be located a
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 6
maximum of 43 feet from the front property line at their farthest points, which are within
the established stringlines.
The proposed plans depict both building and deck stringlines, but different points on the
adjacent properties were used to establish those lines. The building stringline was
established by using the corner of the deck at 3401 Ocean and the corner of the
dwelling at 3425 Ocean, both of which have a 40 foot depth as measured from the front
property line. The deck stringline was established by using a curved portion of the deck
at 3401 Ocean (43.5 foot depth) and the cantilevered deck (44 foot depth) at 3425
Ocean Boulevard.
Other than a minor 1 -foot encroachment at the second floor master bath and the decks,
the proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the 40 -foot line of
development of the adjacent properties. However, as the table below indicates, the
proposed decks on various floors extend beyond the approved stringlines from the
previous plan and deck stringline shown on the proposed plans.
Depth From Front Property Line and Rear Setback
Feature
Depth
Rear Setback
Existing Development
Dwelling/Front Yard Improvements
32 feet
88 feet
Rear Concrete Patio
39 feet
81 feet
Ed a of Cantilevered Deck
41.5 feet
78.5 feet
Approved Develo ment
Dwelling (Varies by Floor
29-37 feet
83-91 feet
Cantilevered Decks aries by Floor
41-43 feet
77 -79 feet
Slab on Grade
43 feet
77 feet
Proposed Development
Dwelling all floors
40 feet
80 feet
First Floor Cantilevered Deck
50 feet
70 feet
Basement Patio on Grade /Cantilevered Deck
49 feet
71 feet
Second Floor Cantilevered Deck
47 feet
73 feet
On Grade Deck/Path to Beach
49 feet
71 feet
As indicated on the table, the proposed dwelling projects 3 -11 feet beyond the approved
dwelling. The proposed on -grade development projects 6 feet beyond the approved slab
on grade development. Finally, the proposed cantilevered decks project 4 -9 feet beyond
those on the approved plan.
Public Views
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program advocate
the preservation of public views. In this particular case, public view preservation along
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 7
Ocean Boulevard is specifically addressed within the Zoning Code. The Code limits the
height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the height of the top of
the adjacent Ocean Boulevard curb. In this case, the adjacent top -of -curb height ranges
from 91.91 mean sea level to (MSL) to 93.01 MSL. The height of the proposed structure
complies with this height limitation.
Although the proposed project encroaches farther on the bluff, it is set back
approximately 71 feet from the rear (bluff) property line, which is 61 feet more than the
required 10 -foot setback. Staff believes that, given the nature of surrounding
developments, the size of the property and the proposed building setback, this increase
is relatively minimal and impacts to public views from the beach or Inspiration Point will
not be adversely impacted.
Coastal Bluff Preservation
Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies state that it is the City's
policy to ensure that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of
natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The majority of the proposed residence is
located within the footprint of the existing development (front yard improvements,
dwelling, rear deck) which extends approximately 39 feet from the front property line.
Although the proposed development extends beyond the imaginary stringline
established by the original approval, staff believes that, since approximately 71 feet of
the bluff will essentially remain undeveloped, the proposed project can be found
consistent with this policy.
Approved Local Coastal Program Policies
The City Council adopted the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan on May 25, .2004.
Although the Plan is not officially in effect until approved by the California Coastal
Commission and the Implementation Regulations are adopted by the City and the
Coastal Commission, a brief discussion has been included addressing two specific
policies relative to development on coastal bluffs. Staff presents analysis for
informational purposes only.
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policy 4.4.3 -4 states:
In areas where the Coastal Bluff has been altered, establish setback lines
for the principal and accessory structures based on the predominant line
of the existing development along the bluff in each block. Apply the
setback line downward from the edge of the bluff and/or upward from the
toe of the bluff to restrict new development from extending beyond the
predominant line of the existing development.
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 8
This policy would limit the development of the site to an approximate depth of 40-44 feet
to be consistent with the adjacent properties. If the proposed project were designed to
comply with this policy, the enclosed portion of the dwelling, depending on where the
stringline is drawn, would be compliant. However, portions of the exterior decks,
especially the lower deck on- grade /path to beach, which extends approximately 10 feet
beyond the existing development, would have to be scaled back or eliminated to
achieve conformance. Please see the table on Page 6 for specific depths of potentially
affected project features.
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policy 4.4.3 -5 states:
in areas where the Coastal bluff has been altered, design and site
development to minimize alteration of those portions of coastal bluffs with
slopes in excess of 20 percent (5:1 slope). Prohibit development on those
portions of coastal bluffs with the unaltered natural slopes in excess of 40
percent (2.5:1 slope), unless the application of this policy would preclude
any reasonable economic use of the property.
As with the preceding policy, strict adherence to this policy would affect the design of
the proposed project in the same way. The footprint of the existing on -grade
development is approximately 39 feet with a cantilevered second floor deck with a depth
of approximately 41.5 feet, as measured from the front property line. The slope beyond
the existing on -grade development is partially altered with a staircase that leads to the
beach. It is likely that the remaining portion of the slope is a combination of altered and
unaltered bluff. Based on the topographic survey, the area of the bluff proposed for
development beyond the existing footprint has an approximate 7:7 or 100% slope. Since
this exceeds the thresholds established by this policy, the proposed project would have
to be redesigned to avoid any additional bluff alteration beyond the existing footprint.
This would specifically affect the dwelling, the patio on grade at the basement level and
the new on -grade path to the beach. Since cantilevered decks do not physically alter the
bluff, staff believes it is appropriate to allow them to be constructed over affected slopes
as long as they do not physically alter the slope below. Please see the table on Page 6
for speck depths of potentially affected project features.
Height Limit Variance Amendment
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. The height limit in the R -1
zoning district is 24 feet as measured from existing /natural grade to the top of a flat roof
or mid -point of a sloping roof with a maximum ridge height of 29 feet.
The approved project allows the dwelling to be approximately 34 feet above the existing
grade at the highest point on the bluff side. The overall height from the proposed
finished grade will be approximately 40 -feet on the bluff side. The proposed project
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 9
requests approval of a structure measuring approximately 37 feet 9 inches from existing
grade and 45 feet from finished grade measured from the base of the retaining wall. The
project also includes a second floor deck that exceeds the 24 foot. height limit by
approximately 4.5 feet.
Section 20.91.035(B) 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 encumbered by sloping topography that creates a
relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the
ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning
Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff. The proposed project does
however, comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant
The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. Granting
the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar
floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels
while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff significantly beyond
the footprint of the existing development. However, if strict application of
the height limit were implemented, portions of the second floor living area
and exterior decks would need to be eliminated and the project
redesigned.
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 practical physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in
the area and on this lot. The granting of this request is consistent with the
intent of the established height limitations to ensure that buildings are not
out of scale with nearby buildings since the height of this building is
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 10
relatively comparable to those on adjacent properties. Therefore, staff
believes this finding can be made.
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 public views as the proposed structure
adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation. The
proposed building extends farther . away from Ocean Boulevard and will
encroach within the private views of the adjacent properties. Since they
will retain a vast majority of a nearly 180 degree view, staff believes the
proposed project will not be detrimental to these properties 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 findings, staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in
this case due to the sloping topography, the preservation of public views and the
preservation of a significant portion of the natural coastal bluff.
Modification of Front Yard Setback
The existing approval includes a Modification Permit that allows the following
subterranean encroachments into the required 10 -foot front yard setback:
Upper Level:
0 feet
Mid Level:
10 feet
Lower Level:
10 feet
Basement Level:
10 feet
The Commission's approval of the encroachments was based on the fact that the
requested setback encroachments were below grade on and not visible.
The proposed revised plan reduces the number of floors encroaching into the setbacks
to one, the Basement Floor. Staff believes that this request is in substantial
conformance with the approved plans and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or
the City.
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 11
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).
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.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and consider the
following options:
1. 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 this staff report and attached Draft Planning Commission
Resolution.
2. The Commission may determine that a scaled back project that better conforms
to the spirit of the stringline, or a project that includes less building mass on the
bluff side, may be achieved while not infringing on the property rights of the
owner. Lowering interior ceiling heights and eliminating over height second floor
deck are possible changes that the Commission may see fit to consider, in which
case the Commission should direct the applicant to redesign the project and
continue the item.
3. Deny the request by adopting the findings for denial included as Exhibit No. 2.
Prepared by:
A�'!Z,t
Gregg 13 mirez, Associate tanner
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Wood "stant City Manager
Circle Residence
December 9, 2004
Page 12
1. Planning Commission Resolution No _; findings and conditions of approval
2. Findings for Denial
3. Applicant Letter of Justification
4. Staff report from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing
5. Minutes from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing
6. Staff Report from the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing
7. Minutes form the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594
9. Approved Project Plans
10. Proposed Plans
EXHIBIT NO. 1
Planning Commission Resolution No ;
findings and conditions of approval
43
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT
NO. 2003 -004 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3415 OCEAN
BOULEVARD (PA2003 -006)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Curt W. Ensign with respect to property located
at 3415 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 6, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a
Variance and Modification Permit to construct a 6,100 square foot residence that exceeds the
24 -foot height limit and, encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. A
public hearing was held on April 3, 2003 at which time the Planning Commission conditionally
approved Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 that permitting the
development of the proposed project. The City Council subsequently called the application for
review and, at their meeting of April 22, 2004, upheld the decision of the Planning Commission.
Both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designates the site as
Single Family Detached residential.
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Brion Jeannette Architecture on behalf of Jan
and Doug Circle, property owners, requesting approval of an amendment to Variance No.
2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 to permit changes to the approved building
design and site improvement plans.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 9, 2004 in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California to consider the proposed
amendments. A notice of the 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 Planning Commission finds as follows:
a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land,
building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions
do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district.
The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively
narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to
the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code while avoiding
alteration of the bluff. The proposed project does however, comply with the Ocean
Boulevard top of curb height limitation
b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 2 of 5
The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. Granting the variance
will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when
compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive
alteration to the coastal bluff significantly beyond the footprint of the existing
development.
c) That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of the
Zoning 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 practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot
configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. The granting of this request is
consistent with the intent of the established height limitations to ensure that buildings
are not out of scale with nearby buildings since the height of this building is relatively
comparable to those on adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed floor area is
well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code.
d) The granting of the requested variance 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. The granting
of the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the
proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation.
Although the proposed building extends farther away from Ocean Boulevard and will
encroach within the private views of the adjacent properties, they will retain a vast
majority of a nearly 180 degree view. Therefore, the proposed project will not be
detrimental to these properties and will result in a structure that is similar to
surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and
design.
e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the properly or
building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working In the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or
injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with
the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons:
15
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 3 of 5
1) Due to the wide Ocean Boulevard right -of- -way, the proposed below grade
encroachment will be approximately 57 feet from the existing sidewalk. The
above grade portion of the structure maintains the required 10 -foot setback
and is located approximately 67 feet from the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. This
increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk
especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence does not
exceed the adjacent top of curb height.
2) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and development
regulations by way of permitting modification and variance applications. This
procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical
hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that
exist in the area and on this lot.
f) The 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).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves
an amendment to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A", the plans dated December 1, 2004.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2004.
AYES:
ABSENT:
NOES:
BY:
Larry Tucker, Chairman
BY:
Jeffrey Cole, Secretary
J6
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 4 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO
VARIANCE NO. 2003-001 &
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003-004
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans and elevations dated December 1, 2004 with the exception of any revisions
required by the following conditions.
2. Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -004 shall expire unless
exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire
Departments. The project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code
regulations.
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the final design of the driveway shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
6. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire
and Building Code.
7. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, the applicant shall
obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission for the demolition of the
existing residence and the construction of the new residence.
8. 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.
9. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specked by section 20.65.070 of the
Zoning Code
10. Prior to the issuance of grading or building pen-nits, a drainage plan shall be prepared.
Site drainage shall be directed to the existing drain line or directed to Ocean Boulevard
unless otherwise approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments.
11
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pa4e 5 of 5
11. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works
Department.
12. The height of the structure shall not exceed the adjacent Ocean Boulevard top of curb
height as shown on the approved set of plans.
13. As part of the submittal requirements for grading and building permits, an extensive
geotechnical investigation and geotechnical report shall be prepared. Included in the
recommendations shall be a shoring plan designed to protect the adjacent properties
and right of way from damage resulting from the temporary removal of lateral support.
14. During excavation and construction, vehicular access to adjacent properties shall be
maintained at all times.
15. Automatic fire extinguishing system (sprinklers) shall be installed in all occupancies
when the total floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet.
16. The applicant shall maintain the access driveway through an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
17. The floor elevation of the garage shall be designed to be higher than the drain.
IS
EXHIBIT NO. 2
Findings for Denial
Findings for Denial
Amendment No. 1 to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004
(PA2003 -006)
The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed the
24128 -foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would be
considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to surrounding
properties because:
a) The existing approval allows for the construction of a single family residence of
similar size, height and bulk as buildings on properties encumbered with
topography similar to that which occurs on the subject property.
b) The existing approval limits the further encroachment of structures down the
coastal bluff by limiting the development to approximately the same location
and depth as the existing development.
c) Adequate area exists on the subject property to construct a reasonably sized
dwelling while complying with the standard development regulations.
d) The proposed structures deviate from the predominant line of development
created by buildings and structures on the adjacent properties.
2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute
minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the
building slab footprint envelope beyond the existing altered area with the proposed
lower level on -grade deck. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent
with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program
policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration
of natural landforms.
EXHIBIT NO. 3
Applicant Letter of Justification
a1
Brion Jeannette Architecture
September 16; 2004
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard .
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Attn: Planning Department
Re: 3415 Ocean Boulevard
Variance Application
To. Whom It May Concern:
The proposed construction project at 3415 Ocean Boulevard includes the demolition of
the existing 2- story single - family residence with attached,2 -car garage, and the
construction of anew 3 -story single - family residence with attached.2 -car garage.
The previous owners of the property proposed a similar project on the site, and received.
approval fora 4- story: single - family residence with attached 2 -car garage. Their approval
included Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No: 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006),
both of which were approved by the Planning Commission per Resolution No. 1594. The
plans and approvals were transferred to the current owners of the property with the
. purchase of the house; but the design, and architect" have changed due to owner- specific
needs and,tastes..
The new.design substantially conforms to the parameters of the approved design,: so that
the Variance. and Modification Permit may still be applied. All of the findings of
Resolution No. 1594 are sti11 applicable, and the Conditions of.Approval listed in Exhibit
"A" therein are met; with the.following,two exceptions::..
1. The.development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved '
plot plan, floor plans and elevations, dated March 11, 2003 with the
exception of any revisions required by the following conditions. .
As explained - above, the plans and:elevations.have changed .to.suitthe new. owners of
the property...The previous plans were fora 4- story, 6100.sf residence: our.proposed
structure is only a,3- story; 4906 sf residence. Also, 'the high point of the previous
plans was 92.53', with the, lowest floor at 43.65' (48.,89' total height), versus'our
proposed high point of 92.1'; and lowest floor at 54.75' (37.36' total height). In
addition, the building mass as viewed from:the street has been reduced by 4%.
470 Old Newport Blvd . Newport Beach, CA 92663 : T: 949.645.5854 F: 949.645.5983 "
Members AIA & NCARB . www.customarchitecture.com a �
Energy Conscious Design .
16. No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or building
stringline as established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining
properties. This regulation includes slab on grade decks and patios,
which may not exceed the deck stringline.
The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code does not recognize a "stringline" for
buildings or decks as a limit of construction. The required rear yard setback is 10',
and the proposed building has a 79.8' rear yard setback. The proposed decks are set
back from the property line 70', leaving approximately two- thirds of the lot
untouched to preserve the face of the bluff, as encouraged by General Plan Policy D.
The proposed decks do not affect public views. Also, the required guardrails on the
decks are clear glass for minimal view impact.
Please let us know if any further information is needed for the Planning Commission to
approve substantial conformance with prior variance and modification approvals.
II e- gards
Doo Anctil
Brion Jeannette Architecture
Brion Jeannette Architecture a3
EXHIBIT NO. 4
Staff Report from the April 3, 2003
Planning Commission Hearing
al
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE COPY
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 6
April 3, 2003
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3219, gramirez(&city newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Boulevard
Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004.
Request for a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to
exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The application also includes a request for a
modification permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new
residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The
applicant does not request to exceed the.top of curb height of Ocean
Boulevard. (PA2003 -006)
APPLICANT NAME: G. Robert Ensign, applicant for Curt W. Ensign, property owner
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
subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10-
foot front yard setback?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve
Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on
the findings and conditions of approval included within this staff report and attached
Draft Planning Commission Resolution.
a5
Ensign Residence
April 3, 2003
Page 2
3415 Ocean Boulevard
1 and Modification Permit
Current
Development:
Single - Family Residence
To the north:
Sin le Family Residences
To the east:
Single Family Residences
To the south:
Single Family Residences
To the west:
Corona Del Mar State Beach
a(e
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The subject property was developed
attached garage in 1956
(Ocean Blvd.) side, 20
development regulations.
Site Overview:
The dwelling
feet high on
Ensign Residence
April 3, 2003
Page 3
with a two level single - family residence and
is approximately 10 feet in height at the front
the bluff side and conforms to all current
The subject property is a coastal bluff that slopes away from Ocean Boulevard down to
the unimproved portion of Breakers Drive and Corona Del Mar State Beach. The upper
third of the site is developed with the existing residence. Access to the property is off
Ocean Boulevard via a narrow access road located within the Ocean Boulevard right -of-
way. An existing path /stairway winds down the coastal bluff to the beach. The remaining
portion of the bluff is heavily landscaped.
The Subject property is zoned R -1 and has the following development regulations:
Lot Size: 7,800 square feet (65 x 120)
Required Setbacks:
Front: 10 feet
Sides: 4 feet
Rear: 10 feet
Buildable Area: 5,700 square feet (57 x 100)
Maximum Floor Area: 8,550 square feet (5,700 x 1.5)
Height Limit: 24' flat roof /mid -point (29' ridge) and no portion of structure
may exceed height of curb at Ocean Boulevard
Project Overview:
The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing single - family dwelling and
the construction of a new four - level, single family dwelling with an attached two -car
garage and roof deck. The proposed project has the following characteristics:
Proposed Square Footage Tabulation:
Upper Level:
1,260 square feet
Mid - Level:
877 square feet
Lower Level:
1,887 square feet
al
Basement Level: 1,603 square feet
Garage (at Mid - Level): 473 square feet
Total: 6,100 square feet
Roof deck: 483 square feet
Maximum floor area to buildable area ratio: 1.5
Proposed floor area to buildable area ratio: 1.07
Proposed height above existing grade (front): 24 feet
Proposed height above existing grade (bluff side): 34 feet
Proposed height above finished grade (bluff side): 40 feet
Analysis:
Public Views
Ensign Residence
April 3, 2003
Page 4
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program advocate
the preservation of public views. In this particular case, public view preservation along
Ocean Boulevard is specifically addressed within the Zoning Code. The Code limits the
height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the height of the top of
the adjacent Ocean Boulevard curb. In this case, the adjacent top -of -curb height ranges
from 91.91 mean sea level to (MSL) to 93.01 MSL. The height of the proposed structure
complies with this height limitation.
Except for an on grade deck at the "Lower Level, the new construction will generally be
located within the same footprint of the existing development. As noted on the site plan,
the proposed structure adheres to both a building and deck "stringline ". The "stringline"
is an imaginary line drawn between the two adjacent residences used as an analytical
tool for comparison and analysis of the encroachment of structures on the coastal bluff.
As a result of using the "stringline ", the proposed residence is setback approximately
75 -feet from the rear property line, well away from the 10 -foot minimum requirement.
Additionally, since the proposed residence does not project beyond the "stringline" of
the adjacent residences, public views from Inspiration Point will not be affected.
Coastal Bluff Preservation
Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies state that it is the City's
policy to ensure that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of
natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The majority of the proposed structure is
located within the existing disturbed area. However, an exterior on grade deck at the
"Lower Level" will be constructed approximately 4 -feet beyond the existing footprint. The
proposed finished floor elevation of the lower level on grade deck on the bluff side is
52.65 MSL, approximately 6 -feet lower than the existing deck. However, as noted in the
Ensign Residence
April 3, 2003
Page 5
"Public View" discussion, the proposed residence (including the deck on grade) will
maintain an approximate 75 -foot rear yard setback leaving approximately two- thirds of
the coastal bluff unaltered by this project.
Due to the location of the proposed structure and minimal bluff alteration beyond the
footprint of the existing development, staff believes that the project can be found
consistent with the policies that require coastal bluff alteration be kept to a minimum.
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 proposed structure is approximately
34 -feet above the existing grade at the highest point on the bluff side. The overall height
from the proposed finished grade will be approximately 40 -feet on the bluff side.
In addition to the standard above grade height regulation, the Zoning Code limits the
height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the adjacent top of curb
height. In this particular case, the top of curb height ranges from 91.91 Mean Sea Level
(MSL) to 93.01 MSL which, coincidentally, is approximately 24 -feet above existing
grade at the front to the subject property. The proposed project has been designed to
have a maximum height of 92.53 MSL to comply with the top of curb height regulation.
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 classfcation.
The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a
relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the
ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning
Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff. The proposed project does
however, comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. Granting
the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar
a�
Ensign Residence
April 3, 2003
Page 6
floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels
while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff beyond the footprint
of the existing development. However, if strict application of the height
limit were implemented, the roof deck and portions of the kitchen, dining
room, and vaulted ceiling over the living room would be eliminated
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 practical physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in
the area and on this lot. Additionally; the proposed floor area is well below
the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code, and therefore, staff believes
this finding can be made.
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 public views as the proposed structure
adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation and is within
the "stringline" of the adjacent properties. 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 findings, staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in
this case due to the sloping topography, the preservation of public views and the
preservation of a significant portion of the natural coastal bluff.
E
Ensign Residence
April 3, 2003
Page 7
Modification of Front Yard Setback
In conjunction with the variance request, the applicant requests approval of a
Modification Permit to allow portion of the proposed structure to encroach into the
required 10 -foot front yard setback. The proposed setbacks are:
Upper Level:
10 feet
Mid Level:
0 feet
Lower Level:
0 feet
Basement Level:
0 feet
Section 20.93.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that in order to grant
relief through a modification permit, the Planning Commission must find that the
"establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not,
under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed
modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. "
The basic intent of front yard setbacks is to provide adequate separation between
structures on private property and the public right -of -way and to provide a consistent look
from the street. In this particular case, the front property line is located approximately 57
feet from the existing Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. The right -of -way between the sidewalk
and property in question consists of a steep slope and access road for the properties
located along the bluff. The proposed encroachments are below existing and proposed
finished grade and taking in to account the 57 -foot linear separation of the structure from
the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk, staff believes the proposed encroachments are
reasonable requests. Additionally, these encroachments will allow additional construction
on the site without substantial alteration to the coastal bluff on the seaward side of the
subject property.
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 in approximately the same footprint.
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
31
Ensign Residence
April 3, 2003
Page 8
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. Findings for denial have been prepared and are
included as Attachment No. 2.
Conclusion:
Staff believes the findings for approval of the Variance and Modification Permit requests
can be made 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. Additionally, the proposed structure adheres to the
Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limit.
As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no comments regarding this
application.
Prepared by:
Gregg B. mirez, Associate anner
Attachments:
Submitted by:
Patricia L. Temple, PlannirVg Director
p-
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
5
Findings for Denial
Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004
(PA2003 -006)
1. The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed
the 24128 -foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would
be considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to
surrounding properties because:
a) The applicant has not demonstrated that a single - family residence cannot be
designed to fully comply with applicable height limits. The applicant can design
a smaller residence and comply with applicable height limits.
2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute
minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the
building slab footprint envelope beyond the existing altered area with the proposed
lower level on -grade deck. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent
with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program
policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration
of natural landforms.
3. The granting of the reduction in the required front yard setback will be detrimental
to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
.working in the neighborhood for the following reasons:
a) The reduced setback of the residence locates structures and uses closer to the
sidewalk. Potential future use of the expanded Ocean Boulevard right -of -way
would be negatively affected due to the reduced setback.
b) The reduced setback places the foundation of the proposed residence in a
position where it will provide lateral support for the public right -of -way due to
the extensive excavation proposed. This is a potential liability for the city.
c) The reduction of the front yard setback will be viewed by property owners and
developers as establishing a precedent to support similar relief without similar
site constraints.
0
ATTACHMENT C
APPLICANT'S LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION
35
3 41 5 OCEAN BOULEVARD
Supplement to Sleet 8 of Application
1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property?
The property is located on a bluff. The lot is 65 feet wide and 120 feet deep.
There is more than 60 vertical feet of fall from the front of the lot to the back
of the lot. The steep slope makes it virtually impossible to comply with the
height limit on the ocean side of the home.
2. Why is this variance necessary?
Homes built along this street are subject to a very strict "string line "setback
pursuant to the Coastal Act to preserve views for adjacent residences and
the public. Compliance with that "string line" limits the width on one side
of the house to slightly more than 20 feet.. Homes on that bluff have
historically been approved and constructed to be three stories above grade
in order to provide reasonable living area and comply with the "string line"
setback.
3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood?
The height of the proposed home when viewed from the front is less than the
24 foot height limit requirement. Only the rear of the home exceeds the
height limit due to the downward slope of the property. The variance on
height will be in keeping with the other homes along the bluff on Ocean
Boulevard. They have been allowed to use the top of curb elevation of
Ocean Bouvlevard as the criteria for the building height limit, for which
this application complies.
A
3�
Ocean d
The project consists of the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new
residence located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. The proposed new residence, which shares a bluff
along Ocean Boulevard with twelve other homes, has been designed to respect the same "string
line" and height limits that have governed the adjacent homes. The contemporary design of the
proposed home provides an arched roofline that keeps the majority of the ridgeline well below the
"top of curb" limit and preserves some view of the beach from the street above. The home is
essentially a three -story home with a basement. There is a split down the middle causing the
floors on the west side of the home to be several feet higher than the floors on the east side of the
home. This split was necessary to enable the living room, dining room and kitchen /nook to all be
connected and still provide a 2 -car garage on the street level. The front door and entryway is
raised with access occurring across a bermed landscape area. When viewed from the street, the
home takes on the character of a single story on the east side with the kitchen located above the
garage on the west side of the home. The bedrooms occupy the lower floors. The limits of the
string line" allow very little depth to the home. The proposed design utilizes a portion of the front
yard setback below street grade in order to allow for proper floor plan design. This livable area
that is within the front yard setback is below the existing street grade, within the legal lot and
invisible to the neighborhood. It is our hope that the City will allow this variance in light that it has
no impact to the neighborhood and greatly Irnproves the livable area of the home.
51
EXHIBIT NO. 5
Minutes from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 3, 2003
• The three lot use does not support residential use consistent with the other
residential use on Balboa Island.
.`,.The idea is to go from three to two lots and then have residential lots that will
be slightly larger but more consistent with the neighborhood.
• This will result in either single family or duplex homes on each lot.
• Both"of those development. patterns are consistent with the residential
development already on Balboa Island.
• This is generally a lower intensity use.
There will only be two property owners, whether there is a duplex or single
family residence that decision has not been made yet. However, they are
leaning towards fwo single family homes.
The garages are off the alley.
Commissioner Tucker noted:
• The pure housing is rather incompatible with the area.
• Something other than a parking lot is certainly an entitlement, although the
parking is nice to have there.
Public comment opened.
Alan Beek, resident of Balboa Island noted that'this conversion is a great idea and
more is needed in the City. He asked that this be approved.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to recorn end approval to the
City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -003, Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. 2003 -001, Code Amendment No. 2002 -009, Ne�/p^ort Parcel Map
No. 2002 -031 (PA2002 -244).
Ayes: Toerge, Agalanion, McDaniel, Selich, Tucker
Recused: Kiser
Excused: Gifford
SUBJECT: Ensign Residence (PA2003 -006)
3415 Ocean Blvd.
Request for a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to
exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The application also includes a request for a
modification permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new
residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant
does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard.
Chairperson Kiser noted the additional conditions of approval distributed.
INDEX
Item No. 6
PA2003 -006
Approved
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 3, 2003
INDEX
Mr. Ramirez noted those additional conditions reflect required Fire and Building
Code policies that, considering the scope of the project, should be in written form
so everyone can be made aware of these issues. He then made a short slide
presentation noting the project site, aerial photo depicting access off the
frontage road along with five other homes, and noted a couple of those
properties that had variances that either allowed height above top of curb (no
access off frontage road) or height above natural grade, as well as views of the
property from the beach. Also included in the slide presentation were the plans
and artist rendering of the proposed project that were also included as part of the
packet. He then noted the 24 foot height limit of the existing grade, the line of
existing grade, the site topography, and the line of the finished grade on the plans
as well as the slab on grade deck. Also noted was the elevation of the floor of the
roof deck as it relates to the curb height, which measured approximately 6 feet
below the top of curb height.
Commissioner Selich, noting the existing topography of the property, stated it was
curious that the house on one side had to get a variance in order to be
constructed and the house on the other side was constructed without a variance.
Both the houses appear to be at the same height so I suspect that one was in
condition like this site where they had to grade a pad out on the bluff, where the
house on the other side the pad had already been excavated and were able to
construct without a variance. Is this true?
Ms. Temple answered she could research that but added that in addition to the
natural grade a lot of the issues related to compliance with the 24 foot height limit
oftentimes flow out of the actual design of the roof as well.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Ramirez noted that all the homes on that frontage road
as depicted in a slide taken from the beach area will have similar roof heights as
they all must comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitations.
Chairperson Kiser acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. Phil and Lynn
Butterfield; a copy of the letter from Zumbrum Law Firm dated April 1'i opposed to
the project, and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Halfacre in support of the project.
Public comment was opened.
Kurt Ensign, resident and applicant noted the following:
• Care was taken in consideration of views and issues related to scale and size
with regard to the neighboring properties.
• The height does not exceed the top of curb limitation; does not exceed the
24 foot height limit as viewed from the front of the house; compared to the
neighbors, the rendering matches the ridge line of the neighboring home
and on the other side, it slopes down.
• We have preserved view corridors on either side of the project.
• This is a three story home that does have a split with a basement. The homes
on either side are three stories.
• A denial of this proposal would be inconsistent with what is built around the
10
46
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 3, 2003
subject property.
• We are all held to the fact that we can not build out towards the ocean and
over 2/3 of our lot on the rear is not buildable.
• We only have 25 feet of buildable depth of house once the front yard
setback is subtracted and comply with the string line in the back. That is the
hardship that necessitates a variance.
• The building height on the beach side is why we need the variance. We
have been careful to match what the existing homes have on the base of
the home.
• We are requesting to encroach into the front yard setback but it is entirely
below the street grade. The livable space will not be visible to anyone.
• We have proposed a basement. We will be subject to the Building
Department and the basement will be constructed pursuant to appropriate
codes and structural engineering standards and requirements, etc. and all
our contractors will provide the essential insurance.
• The roof deck is a concern of our neighbor across and above us on the other
side of the street. Therefore, I have offered and will be recording a
covenant that restricts any portable furnishings that exceed top of curb
height not be allowed on the roof deck. It will be recorded and subject to
civil litigation.
• The variance is more of a technical one as the proposed height is consistent
with the neighbors; the size is three stories, the some as the neighbors'; the
design complies with the string line along the rear of the home and the
variance for the front yard is not visible and is consistent with recent
approvals.
Chairperson Kiser noted that every variance granted is done so on its own merits
and is not considered a precedent.
Commissioner Selich, referring to the slides noted his concern of taking away more
of the bluff area.
Mr. Ensign noted that there is an existing retaining wall on, the right side of the
house. When that is removed, we will intersect the dirt at that natural grade line.
Referring to the slides, he noted the slob at the ground, retaining wall and the
natural grade between the homes. The adjacent homes are three stories and do
not have basements. .
Alan Beek, resident of the City noted the following:
• The setback is a vital part of the narrow street which gives access to other
houses and the project should be conditioned upon the ceiling of these
rooms being constructed with sufficient strength to support these heavy
vehicles and the setback area being paved to form a continuation of the
street.
• The maximum height of the house should not be more than the minimum
height of the Ocean Blvd., curb that is 91.91 MSL, as proposed it is 92.53 MSL.
The loss of half a foot of the view of the ocean is significant.
• The encroachment of four feet beyond the string line for the grade level
11
INDEX
4!
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 3, 2003
patio on the ocean side should not be granted and the applicant should be
made to hold the line. If you hold to the standard and grant no exceptions,
everyone has equal treatment and the homes present a smooth front with
no exceptions.
• The proposed findings are slanted for the applicant. The same
circumstances and conditions apply to the whole row of homes on the top
of the bluff. The proposed project does not comply with the Ocean Blvd. top
of curb height limitation; it actually violates the limitation by 0.62 feet. The
other properties have been held to the string line criterion and the curb
height criterion; to grant even small exceptions for this property does
constitute a grant of special privilege.
• The project as designed is unreasonable. Given the number of bedrooms
and the total floor area, this six - bedroom house with 5,627 square feet is
more than a 'luxury'. These bedrooms average only 138 square feet -
somewhat more like a barracks than a home. The five of them have only
two bathrooms and one of those must be accessed through the game
room.
I ask that you condition the project on not exceeding the string line with the
grade level patio, on being lowered 0.62 feet to meet the height -of -curb
criterion, and the front setback be made part of the street and supported
with enough strength to carry City trash trucks. I strongly recommend that
you require more garage spaces for six bedrooms as we all know that
bedrooms translate to cars. Let's be realistic.
Commissioner Selich noted that the area referenced as the low point of the curb
is also the low point of the roof and that roof is substantially below the 92.53, which
appears at the other end of the property. Is that correct staff?
Ms. Temple answered that the curb adjoining this property at Ocean Boulevard is
not at a consistent elevation and in fact slopes from a high to low point. This
particular house was designed so that at any static point along the frontage, the
building conforms to the limitation of no higher than curb. The City's Zoning Code
does not require no higher than the lowest point of curb adjoining the property,
but only that it be no higher than the curb at that point. This particular property
does conform to that provision.
Chairperson Kiser noted that the project will be conditioned so that no part of the
structure will be built higher than the curb height. The home is not being built
underneath that access road. The excavation below grade into the setback and
to the property line will only go up to the ocean side of that access road and no
portion of the residence will be underneath the access road. Staff concurred.
Continuing, he noted that we will be discussing the lower grade patio.
Phil Butterfield, neighbors of the proposed project noted the following:
• Concerned that the applicant stays within the restrictions that all the
neighbors had to abide by.
• Concerned with the excavation that is proposed and wants to be assured
that the licensed contractors have insurance and that it will be built
12
INDEX
0-.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 3, 2003
INDEX
according to City guidelines.
There is a difference between a retaining wall and actually removing an
enormous amount of dirt that is planned. Not knowing the bluff stability,
thinks that would be a great concern to the other neighbor as well.
Lynn Butterfield, distributed handouts to the Planning Commission and noted:
• The size of her newly constructed home and comparisons to the proposed
project.
• Asked that the project not be given anything more than the neighbors.
• Concerned with safety issues of bluff erosion.
• Roof deck with no umbrellas is not feasible as it gets very hot.
• The granting of this application would be preferential treatment to the
applicant.
• At Commission inquiry, she stated that other than the excavation issue, she
is concerned with the public right of way; exceeding the string line with the
deck; and the height in back is taller than other projects.
Don Cazarion, 3412 Ocean Boulevard across from the Ensign project noted:
• The top deck could have been eliminated.
• The project is a nice design.
Chairperson Kiser asked if this project could be conditioned to require the
recordation of a view easement that would prevent anything being placed on
the top deck that would exceed the curb height.
Ms. Clauson answered not in that regard. The concept of being involved with
reviewing covenants, their effectiveness and what they are in exchange for along
with rights would put the City in the position to see what is complied. You could
look at putting a condition in to prohibit anything on the roof, although I do not
know the practicality of it.
Chairperson Kiser noted that since we are talking about a public view and we
have the authority to condition this for the public view from the walkway along
Ocean Blvd., could we not condition the project?
Ms. Clauson answered you could.
Ms. Temple added that this is a legitimate concern, however from a practicality
standpoint if someone puts out an umbrella for three hours on Saturday afternoon
and brought it back in and on Monday there is a complaint, there is nothing we
could do about it. If there was a storage shed, that may require building permits.
It would not be permitted because it would exceed the height limit. There are a
number of things after fact that people do try that require a building permit. I am
concerned as an enforcement officer, not an attorney, that implying to the
community that by imposing such a condition we could also effectively enforce it.
think it would be very difficult to stand up before the community and say we can
impose it and yes we are going to be able to enforce it.
13
Lb
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 3, 2003
INDEX
Ms. Clauson stated that if the owner puts on their own covenant and there is no
consideration for it, the next owner can take it off. There is really no enforcing
capability that comes out of that particularly with future owners.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Ensign noted that he has prepared the covenant and is going to record it
because he gave his word. He added that the house was designed with two
string lines in mind, one for the house and one for the deck. In both cases we
comply and do not exceed either one.
Mr. Ramirez added that per the plans the string lines are complied with. The
confusion may lie in the deck that goes beyond the string line is the one that is on
the lowest level on grade 4 feet beyond the string line.
Mr. Ensign answered that it is not a deck, it is a slab that is on grade. Following a
brief discussion he added that he has no intention of protruding beyond the string
line on any level.
Mr. Ramirez added that according to the plan from the front property line to the
back of the furthest most portion of the deck /slab on grade (sheet A2), the lower
level floor plan, that dimension as identified on plan is 44 feet. The other decks
from the front setback to the farthest most portion dimension is 41 feet.
Mr. Ensign noted that these are concept plans and there will be no deck there. If
you want to add a condition to preclude any decks from extending beyond the
string lines from the adjacent properties, I am fine with that.
Chairperson Kiser noted that anything that is approved tonight is based on the
plans that are presented with the proper dimensions,
Commissioner Selich noted that if this is a slab on grade, it could be landscape as
well.
Mr. Ensign noted that any railings on the decks will be glass.
Rod Jones, 3328 ocean Boulevard commended the applicant on the design and
feels it will be an asset to the neighborhood. He voiced his concern with the
amount of excavation that could happen.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Selich noted his support of the project:
• Variance is warranted as the property has a steep slope going down.
• There are two homes on either side, one needed a variance and one did
not.
• The topography of the property makes it difficult to build a reasonable
house.
14
d
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
ADrll 3, 2003
INDEX
The basement is the primary contributor to the extra square footage and
any home can dig down and create a basement area as long as they are
Within the square footage limits.
It is a well designed home and stays below the curb height from Ocean
Boulevard.
Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated
above.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project as it gives consistency
with everybody else.
Commissioner Toerge noted his support of the project stating:
• This parcel is not unique compared to the properties next door to it.
• 1 am disappointed in our aged General Plan and Zoning Codes allow six
bedrooms in this house while requiring only two cars of parking that on a
frontage street that provides no off - parking.
• Putting 6 bedrooms and providing two parking spaces can only create
problems for the neighbors.
• Concerned that the size of the home would start to encroach into the bluff
area and change the character of the bluff, however, with the existing
retaining wall in place, there will not be a significant difference.
• With the retaining wall in place and the amount of grading to be done,
hopefully there will not be a tremendous difference.
Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the project:
• The excavation issues are challenging and outside our purview.
• The setback encroachment in front is not an issue.
• The string line issues have been addressed.
Chairperson Kiser noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated and
made Motion to approve 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 with the additional conditions 13, 14 and 15 distributed at
the meeting with additional conditions that no portion of the residential structure
would exceed the string line from the homes. on either side of the project no
portion of a project deck would exceed the string line from the decks of the homes
on either side of the project, and the word 'deck' would be deleted from the plans
which include the words 'slab on grade' so that no approval of a deck on the slab
on grade shown on the plans would be implied. An additional condition that
nothing is to be placed on the roof deck that would exceed the height of the curb
at Ocean Boulevard.
Ms. Clauson noted that the condition may be worded that nothing shall exceed
the height of 4 -6 feet on the top deck so that it would be enforceable for any
item, such as furniture, plants.
Chairperson Kiser stated the condition should read no plantings, structures,
15
q5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 3, 2003 _
furniture or any other objects can exceed the height of the rail of the roof deck as
approved by this variance, which is about 6 feet above the level of the deck.
Public comment was reopened.
Mr. Ensign said he agrees with the additional conditions.
Public comment was closed.
Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker
Excused: Gifford
a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council on March
251h , discussed the staffing levels of the Planning Department as two new
positions are requested; the Council endorsed the Vision Statement; and
intro&ged and passed to second hearing the Landmark Building statute.
b) Oral report.,from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Developmerit Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that the April 23,d
meeting will have a presentation of the City's traffic model being used for
the General Plan Opdate.
C) Report from Planning'gommission's representatives to the General Plan
Update Committee - Cormissioner Agajanian reported that nominations
had been approved to fill out the vacancies; and agreement was
reached on the process antl,,how the Planning Commission and City
Council will be involved.
d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal
Plan Update Committee - no meeting.',
4
e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - none. ''Y.
f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish�,to place on a future
agenda for action and staff report - create a conserit calendar mechanism
for the Planning Commission meetings.
g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple distributed an
updated listing. Following a brief discussion item 4 is remove, item 9 is
finished, and item 13 is going to be placed on the City Council Study Session
in two weeks.
h) Project status - We have received two applications, St Marks and St Andrews
and staff has determined both require an environmental impact report. The
16
Additional Business
`,W
EXHIBIT NO. 6
Staff Report from the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing
41
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY'COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 9
April 22, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3219, gramirez -.city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Boulevard
Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004
APPLICANT NAME: G. Robert Ensign, applicant for Curt W. Ensign, property owner
ISSUE:
Should the City Council 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
subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10-
foot front yard setback?
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No.
2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval contained
within the attached Planning Commission Resolution.
DISCUSSION:
On April 3, 2003 the Planning Commission approved the applications permitting a single
family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and encroach up to 10 -feet into the
required 10 -foot front yard setback. The project was approved as requested by the
applicant with the exception of a slab on grade deck which was not permitted to project
beyond a stringline established between the two adjacent residences (Condition No.
16). During the course of the hearing, the Commission considered the height of the
structure above the existing grade and if the sloping topography of the property justified
approval. The Commission also considered the overall height of the'structure and how it
would relate to neighboring properties located on the bluff and whether the
subterranean front setback encroachments would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
4
Ensign Residence
April 22, 2003
Page 2
The Commission concluded that approval of the applications was warranted based on
the sloping topography creating a narrow building pad of the property, the project's
compliance with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit and the fact that the front
yard encroachments are completely subterranean. Additionally, the proposed structure
is comparable to the abutting properties in terms of height and visible mass.
Additional Information
The subject property is one of six homes that take access off the small Ocean
Boulevard frontage road. Of these six, one located at 3425 Ocean Boulevard (adjacent
to the subject property) received approval of two variances to exceed the 24 -foot height
limit. Variance No. 1063 (A) permitted a roof mid -point height of 37 feet above existing
grade at the highest point. The top of ridge is approximately 4 feet higher but appears to
comply with the 29 -foot ridge height limit above natural grade based on location higher
up the slope. Variance No. 1153 permitted two second floor decks on the bluff facing
side to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and have a maximum height of 29 feet.
The structure located on the other side of the subject property, 3401 Ocean Boulevard,
appears to have been constructed in compliance with the height regulations based on a
review of Building Department records. This was achieved by using pitched roofs, which
can be constructed to 29 -feet above existing grade so long as the mid - points of the
roofs do not exceed 24 feet, and by locating the ridge peaks farther up the slope.
However, the height of the structure as measured from finished floor to top of ridge as a
result of construction is approximately 34 feet.
The height of the proposed structure from finished floor is approximately 34 feet above
natural grade and approximately 40 feet above finished /proposed grade at the highest
point towards the southeasterly side of the property. The structure has more floor area
than the other homes on the bluff due to the construction of a basement level and
subterranean portions of other levels. The Commission received testimony from a
neighboring property owner who expressed concerns regarding the stability of the
property and adjoining properties due to the excavation. The Commission noted that the
project will require extensive geotechnical and engineering. studies that will be reviewed
by the Building Department during plan check. Additionally, the contractors, engineers
and other design professionals associated with the project are required to have liability
insurance should damage to adjacent properties occur.
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 in approximately the same footprint.
I
Ensign Residence
April 22, 2003
Page 3
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:
The Council has the following options:
1. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by reducing the height of the
structure and setback encroachments.
2. Refer the applications back to the Planning Commission with instructions.
3 Deny the application.
Prepared by:
Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate/Planner
Attachments:
Additional D. .. .
Submitted by:
..
a
ATTACHMENT D
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE
rl
;Dsd V"re4 eld
3401 OCEAN BLVD.
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
949$75-7482 PHONE
9496754666 FAX
To: Planning Commissioner
City of Newport Beach
Subject: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Blvd. CDM
Variance No. 2003 -001
Modification Permit No. 2003 -004
Public Hearing April 3, 2003 @ 6:30PM
We strongly oppose the project as it is currently designed. 'There is no justification in the
findings that warrants issuance of this variance or modification to Mr. Ensign. We feel
doing so would set an adverse precedent for future applicants who ultimately would want
to push the building envelope even further. The height and width of construction in our
area has been dictated and strictly adhered to for nearly 50 years as indicated by the six
homes presently residing on our bluff. See photo. Our properties in this particular area
have always been more restricted due to the fact that we all abut CDM State Beach and
must preserve the bluff and views for the public and surrounding neighbors. This is
further substantiated by the new forthcoming NPB General Plan/Local Coastal Plan
update.
We are not necessarily happy about these restrictions but we were all made aware of
them when we purchased our homes on this section of the bluff. Why does Mr. Ensign
feel he should be granted special building privileges given that the other five surrounding
homeowners have all had similar building limitations and have built their homes
accordingly? Mr. Ensign like the rest of us can design a livable (tome that will meet his
steeds and still conform to the existing building restrictions, without feeling deprived of
his private property rights. However, if Ire needs more living space and insists on digging
out three subterranean floors adjacent to our home we would expect him to indemnify us
(backed by insurance) prior to the start of his construction. This is an absolute must to
ensure our safety and peace of mind in that the stability of our home and its strucnue
would be safe from hart during his unprecedented excavation.
Mr. Ensign's project is attractive and would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood
if he could pull in and scale back to conform to the existing homes around him.
Respectfully.
Philip & Lynne Butterfield
3401 Ocean Blvd.
Coruna dcl Mar. CA 9262_5
�°l"' 4- t-Q003
THE ZUMBRUN LAW FIRM
rt frojeaslonal Corporation
April 1, 2003
tor. Steven laser
Chairman, Plannint Commission
City of Newport Reach
240 Newport Center Drive; Suite 210
Newport Beach. CA 92660
Dear Mr. Kiser:
Re: Ensign Residence. 3413.Occan Boulevard;
.Agenda Item. No. 6 for April 3, 2003;
Variance loo. 2003 -001 and lvlilication Permit No. 2003.004
This is to advise you that I have been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Philip Butterfield to
represent theist concerning the above matter. The Butterficlds arc next door neighbors
(3401 Ocean Boulevard) to the north of fir. and Ivirs. Curt Ensign. The Rutterfields
oppose the Ensigns' request For a variance to allow portions of their new single - Gamily
residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The Burtcrftclds also strongly oppose the
Ensigns' request for a modification permit to allow subterranean portions of three floors of
their new residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The
Butterficlds object to the approval of the above items based in part on the following
comments.
Variance to Rxceed the 24 -Foot Fieieht Limit
No showing has been made that special circumstances are applicable to the Ensign property,
which justify the approval of it variance. The Ramirez Staff Report retarding this matter
mentions that the subject property has a sloping topography. 'I71c Staff Report does not
discuss what Crakes the: Ensign property specifically unique compared to its neighboring
properties which would justify disparate treatment between neighboring properties. Other
property owners within the subject neighborhood also have sloping topography; however,
compliance with the 24 -foot height limit has previously been enforced.
Additionally, although the Staff Report concludes that "the variance will allow the property
owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size ref' homes on
similar si%ed parcels," no showing has been presented to the Planning Commission as to
Ak -
3800 Wan Avenue
Suite 101
Sacramento, 0195821
Tel 916.486.5900 7 3
Fax 916.486 -5959
Mr. Steven Kiser. Chairman
..Page -2-
April 1, 2003
what sitnilar -size parcel the Ettsigns' property is being compared. At best, the Staff Report
is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. As aptly stated. in the Findings for
Denial. "The applicant ltas not demonstrated that a single- family residence cannot be
designed to fully comply with the applicable height limits.
Request to F..tic nc the P.c jf d 10 -Foot Front Yard Setback
No provisions have been made to establish that the implementation of tine Ensign project
will maintain the health, salbty, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working in tho neighbo - hood. Section 20.93.040 of tile 'Newport Beach Municipal Code
requires the funding of the above factors and accordingly provides a standard of care by
which Newport Beach and the Ensigns have a duty to abide. it is reasonably forasceable
that the extensive excavation on sloping topography being proposed by the Ensigns may
cause detriment or injury to neighboring properties and to the general welfare of Newport
Beach. As cited in the Findings for Denial, the extensive excavation may compromise the
lateral support to the public right -of- tray.. As the neighboring property owners, the
Butterfields arc legitimately concerned that support of their property may be compromised
as well.
Rather than keeping their proposed "extensive excavation" to a minimum, the Ensign% now
seek to increase the excavation and encroach upon the required 10 -foot front yard setback.
The Butterfields strongly oppose the Ensigns' proposed "extensive excavation" project. If
such a project were permitted to go forward, Section 20.93.040 requires that safety.
comfort, and general welfarc must be provided for. The Butterfields request that the
Planning Commission condition any approval of the Ensigns' "extensive excavation" with
the requirement that sufficient insurance coverage be obtained to (told Newport Beach
harmless and to cover arty injury to the Butterfields' property resulting from the L-'nsiers'
project.
it is respectfully reconuaendcd that the subject Agenda Item No. 6 for April. "a, 2003 be
denied is sufficient evidence; and findings have not been made to justify a variance or
cnaroachment of uniformly enforced standards. In the alternative, the Butterfields strongly
petition that sufficient insurance coverage be obtained prior to permitting the Ensigns,
extensive excavation.
Sincerely,
RONALD A. ZUMBRUN
Attorney for 1-1r. and firs. Philip tiuttertield
EXHIBIT NO. 7
Minutes form the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing
5-�
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
April 22, 2003
INDEX
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
...:...
Ayes: H ... effernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Mayor Bromberg
Noes: None ...........
.
Abstain: Nichols
Absent: None
9. ENSIGN RESIDENCE, 3415 OCEAN BLVD VARIANCE NO. 2003-
Variance No.
001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004.
2003 -001/
Modification
Planning Director Temple stated that the variance is for a property on
Permit
the coastal bluff side of Ocean Boulevard to exceed the 24 -foot height
No. 2003 -004/
limit. She pointed out that this area of Corona del Mar has a dual height
PA2003 -006
Emit, one for 24 feet as measured from existing or natural grade and one
Ensign Residence
for the top of the curb height on Ocean Boulevard. Planning Director
(91)
Temple stated that the project complies with the curb height limit, but
exceeds the 24 -foot height limit on the coastal bluff side of the property,
due to the drop in elevation on the site. She reported that the Planning
Commission did recommend approval of the variance. .
Council Member Nichols stated that there is more than one type of
property along the bluffs in Corona del Mar. He stated that one type
allows a house to cascade down the bluff and is allowed by current codes.
He stated that a second type uses a string line to measure height and
distance out, which prevents houses from continuing all the way down the
bluff. Council Member Nichols stated that in this situation, the property
owner is proposing to cut into the slope and continue down approximately
27 feet into the bluff. He noted that the lowest level would have no
windows and serve as a basement, making the house four stories and not
three. He stated that regulations should be put in place for the
undercutting of the bluff that will take place, and that the area should be
reinforced. He also disagreed with the bluff being cut into so massively,
but wasn't sure if the string line method should be used.
Mayor Bromberg stated that the property owner is entitled to build into
the bluff. He also felt that the Planning Commission made good findings
and noted that they approved the variance, unanimously.
Council Member Webb stated that the property owner is also requesting
to build below grade in the front yard setback. He asked how much extra
excavation would be needed if this occurred. Public Works Director
Badum stated that it would probably amount to 500 to 600 cubic yards,
and would require approximately 50 to 60 trucks for removal. Council
Member Webb noted that the existing driveway is in poor condition. He
suggested that a requirement to repair or restore the driveway be
considered. Public Works Director Badum stated that a requirement to
maintain the driveway in its current condition would be a part of the
encroachment permit. He noted that the number of trucks that will be
driving on the site will most likely require the driveway to be rebuilt. He
added that the driveway is a shared facility and serves six homes.
Council Member Webb stated that there is a drainage pipe that runs
adjacent to the site. Since the property owner is planning to lower the
garage by approximately eighteen inches, which would put the elevation
Volume 56 - Page 108
r�
a
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
April 22, 2003
INDEX
of the garage close to the drain, he asked if there should be a requirement
to provide an overflow so that the water wouldn't go into the garage in
case the inlet were plugged. Public Works Director Badum stated that
this, again, would be looked at during the building process and that the
property owner would be required to prevent flooding and protect the
drain. He added that the property owner will also be required to
maintain the driveway access for the neighbors. Council Member Webb
confirmed with Public Works Director Badum that drains coming down
the slope are required to be below grade, or subsurface.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the surface of the garage is higher or
lower than the drain.
Council Member Webb stated that, according to the plans, the surface of
the garage.floor is approximately six inches higher than the top of the
curb right above the catch basin. He added that if the catch basin were
plugged and an overflow device weren't in place, water could potentially
go into the garage.
In regard to the truck traffic that will take place, Council Member
Heffernan noted a previous incident where damage was done to a City
waterline due to excavation and trucks. Public Works Director Badum
stated that conditions would be placed in the encroachment permit which
would require existing City improvements to be maintained. He noted
that in the incident cited, the property owner was responsible for repair.
He also confirmed that during the building permit and plan check
process, staff will be looking at these types of items.
Council Member Nichols stated that his calculations show that 540 cubic
yards of material would be removed in the setback area, which would
require about 70 trucks for removal.
Mayor Bromberg asked if the property owner would be agreeable to
maintaining and repairing the driveway, if necessary. He stated that it
appears that the other issues would be handled during the building
process by the Public Works Department.
Mayor Bromberg opened the public hearing.
Curt Ensign, property owner, stated that he and another neighbor, who
will also be starting construction on his home, have already discussed the
need to obtain an encroachment permit so that they can repave and
possibly enhance the driveway. He `confirmed that he has no problem
with a condition that would require him to repair the street.
Council Member Nichols asked if the property owner had to have the
basement. He noted that it undermines the wall and allows for more
square footage than the other homes.in the area. Mr. Ensign stated that
he feels he needs the basement for storage and to serve as a recreation
area for his children. He stated that it won't be visible to the public and
he will comply with the building and safety requirements for the design
and construction of the area.
Volume 56 — Page 109
J 1
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
April 22, 2003
Hearing no further. testimony, Mayor Bromberg closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification
Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions
of approval contained within the Planning Commission Resolution, and
adding an additional condition that the encroachment permit require the
driveway to be maintained and that the plan check process insures that
the floor elevation of the garage is higher than the drain.
Mr. Ensign stated that the storm drain flows down to the beach and he
will be asking if he can connect into that drain per a City- approved plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he wants to make sure that the
garage won't flood. Mr. Ensign stated that an inflow location could be
provided into the storm drain below the level of the catch basin.
Council Member Webb confirmed that he is confident that the driveway
issue will be handled by the Public Works Department and the
encroachment permit process.
Council Member Nichols stated that he would prefer that concrete
retaining walls not be utilized.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Mayor Bromberg
Noes: Nichols
Abstain: None
Absent: None
CURCI PROPERTY, 129 AGATE AVENUE - GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -003, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -001, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -009,
NEWPORT PARCEL NO. 2002 -031 (PA2002 -244).
Planning Director Temple stated that the property is located at the
corner of Agate Avenue and Park Avenue on Balboa Island. She stated
that it is currently being used as a private commercial parking lot and is
designated as Retail and Service Commercial (Residential). The
applicant is requesting to change the designation to Two - Family
Residential, to rezone the property to R -1.5 and to subdivide the existing
three lots into two lots for residential development. Planning Director
Temple stated that the principal. issue is the long -term use of the
property in the area, since it is located in a small commercial district.
Council Member Nichols stated that he is in support of the recommended
action.
Mayor Bromberg opened the public hearing.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to approve the applications by
adopting Resolution No. 2003 -23 and introducing Ordinance No. 2003.7
Volume 56 - Page 110
INDEX
Res 2003 -23
Ord 2003 -7
General Plan
Amendment
No. 2002 -003/
Local Coastal
Program
Amendment
No. 2003 -0011
Code Amendment
No, 2002 -0091
PA2002 -244
Curci Property
(45)
EXHIBIT NO. 8
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594
59
RESOLUTION NO. 1594
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO.
2003 -001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004
(PA2003 -006) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3415 OCEAN
BOULEVARD
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was filed by Curt W. Ensign with respect to property located
at 3415 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 6, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a
Variance and Modification Permit to construct a 6,100 square foot residence that exceeds the
24 -foot height limit and, encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback.
Both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designates the. site as
Single Family Detached residential.
Section 2. A public hearing was held on April 3, 2003 in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the 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.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land,
building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions
do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district.
The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively
narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to
the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code without additional bluff
alteration. The proposed project complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height
limitation.
b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff that General Plan
Policy D encourages preservation. Granting the variance will allow the property owner
to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on
similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff beyond the
footprint of the existing development.
c) 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.
,1
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594
Paqe 2 of 5
The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations
by way of permitting variance applications, and 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. Additionally, the proposed floor
area is well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code.
d) The granting of the requested variance 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 public views as the
proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation and is
within the "stringline" of the adjacent properties. Therefore, 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.
e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or
building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of.persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or
injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with
the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons:
1) Due to the wide Ocean Boulevard right -of -way, the proposed below grade
encroachments will be approximately 57 feet from the existing sidewak. The
above grade portion of the structure maintains the required 10 -foot setback
and is located approximately 67 feet from the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. This
increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sicewalk
especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence does not
exceed the adjacent top of curb height.
2) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and deveicpment
regulations by way of permitting modification and variance appiicaticns. This
procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical
hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations 'hat
exist in the area and on this let.
I
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594
Pacie 3 of 5
f) The 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).
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission approves
Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004, subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A ", the plans dated March 11, 2003.
Section 5. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL 2003.
AYES: Toerge Agaianian McDaniel, Kiser,
Selich and Tucker
ABSENT: Gifford
NOES: None
Steven Kiser, Chairman
BY: i' A: Li (i' i 1�
c tart'
M
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594
Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 &
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003-004
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans and elevations dated March 11, 2003 with the exception of any revisions required
by the following conditions.
2. Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -004 shall expire unless
exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire
Departments. The project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code
regulations. _
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the final design of the driveway shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
6. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire
and Building Code.
7. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, the applicant shall
obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission for the demolition of the
existing residence and the construction of the new residence.
8. 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.
9. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specified by section 20.65.070 of the
Zoning Code
10. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a drainage plan shall be prepared.
Site drainage shall be directed to the existing drain line or directed to Ocean Boulevard
unless otherwise approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments.
rLr J
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594
Pape 5 of 5
11. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works
Department.
12. The height of the structure shall not exceed the adjacent Ocean Boulevard top of curb
height as shown on the approved set of plans.
13, As part of the submittal requirements for grading and building permits, an extensive
geotechnical investigation and geotechnical report shall be prepared. Included in the
recommendations shall be a shoring plan designed to protect the adjacent properties
and right of way from damage resulting from the temporary removal of lateral support.
14. During excavation and construction, vehicular access to adjacent properties shall be
maintained at all times.
15. Automatic fire extinguishing system (sprinklers) shall be installed in all occupancies
when the total floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet.
16. No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or buildirg stringline as
established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. This regulation
includes slab on grade decks and patios, which may not exceed the deck stringline
17, Fixed or portable objects including, but not limited to, umbrellas, space heaters, cabinets,
furniture, and plantings placed on the roof deck may not exceed the height of the 6 -foot
roof deck privacy wall facing Ocean Boulevard.
18. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised set of
drawings to the Planning Department 'for inclusion in the Variance file showing the
deletion of the word "Deck" from the plans as shown on Sheet A -2, Lower Level Floor
Plan. .
19, The applicant shall maintain the access driveway through an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.'
20. The floor elevation of the garage shall be designed to be higher than the drain.'
Added by the City Councit Aprii 22. 2003
(P
EXHIBIT NO. 9
Approved Project Plans
m
I
ya$,no 7'N pun -JH
EiA
J
d E
S
i
v
. ca <oau rro61 nfMCM'<vJ YDI88.,IAGd9HN
vo v +e•6 uea..p >..ui.o9 . =.a0 f",
pp P
3 Z J g Z I H J 8 V
v8ts MR -,q lima TJH, p u >•rRr
t l
MOM 0
d E
S
i
v
0
k
•. b
g
3
Y
i
0
k
•. b
g
IDI
EXHIBIT NO. 10
Proposed Plans
jb
b7 'TPdW '13Q 'dN0210'� - ®_•• . -• ...•.pm I N Ici 3115
X19 NH3'�O 514E ��ye uD 12IS 3'LLI1
3*:N3a153N 3 061 J
m#U�sd
a
11
4002 0 330
H7 'aaw -ma IdNO21o7
ani9 Nb970 sli•s sNVid aooid
37N0a1s321 3172117 pad "�'^�au� a11DB�'10�� 15211d Y 1PLaW3S'd9
f
►�i� —� VV s
i , : ►' �� �,r ar — as
n
4
Ix
WZ -1 0 336
I
I
I
I
I
1
�1
V i
i
1
4I Y
I §
'a
1
I I
I
I
1
I
Ag
bF pg¢g Y
F 511 al I
1I
F.
Z
I
1
_ I
1
1 —
I
I6
1 j
�I x
a
\ 09
nl
1
1
_ } 1
1 .q6
._ � _
e I�z� zs
e= NY
_ »mom -
_r_,
.&a'
%p
&& f 9 e& 0 9
_»_
h2
§ 1) |ƒ
. - -,
|�
It
��
. . _ .. _ . _. _. �. .....vv • �y.wn w I7oc9V\ WIIIGUd\eIJA�6jY330 :
a'Mi�/VV��44jj O
a7 '21aW �3a aNaaoo —�
07143GI532i 3Yhll0 a�ry�a +l4�v aa� euuoe�uou� SNOIla/�3'13 4 S 4 € °�+e d
T
}nog o am
16
0 030
PI
I H
I
I
I
1
I IE
I
A
I
I
I
yl
�I
al H
I
�I
I
�I
I
�I
I
I
I n
I a
I I
I II I $
Ell it II
& " y
iN
h I N
11
1 '
>>
, J
Im
;z
W
U
O
tl ,
� I
m
I
I �
I � I
I I
I
I i
c
I I
I I
1 g+t 1
1 1
1 1,
i 1
aeon o 330
111111111 ,.
111 it
/11111111 111
1111111111 1111
IIIIIIIIf I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ffj r � l
Illlllfrf f I '
I�Ilrrrffrff f I
I�Ill�j�fj ff I
-
I1111111111. \1
11111, ,1' r 1fr1ff 1 f 1\1 1 � 11 1 � A��y I I I I
1 111
k
3
W
J%
m n
6 1
U
O
N
e
Ld
w
ao
a
0
0
awl
J
�e