Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNavai Residence (PA2002-007)��ew'Oar CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u c { 1= PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Hearing Date: Agenda Item: Staff Person: Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Navai Residence (PA2002 -007) 1201 Kings Road March 21, 2002 2 James Campbell (949)644 -3210 14 days from final SUMMARY: Amendment to a previously approved Variance where a 1 and 2 story addition to an existing single family dwelling would exceed the 24 -foot height limit, ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. The modified project would further exceed the 24 -foot height limit ranging from 1 to 10.17 feet. RECOMMENDED ACTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN: ZONE: OWNER/APPLICANT: Background Approve, Modify or Deny Variance No. 2002 -002. Parcel 2, PM 51 -7 Single Family Detached R -1 Jim Navai, Newport Beach On May 18, 2000, the Planning Commission denied the fast design by the applicant for an addition to his residence that would exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The applicant appealed the action to the City Council who referred the item back to the Planning Commission since to the project was being redesigned after the Commission's action. The redesigned project was considered and approved by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2000. The addition was 952 square feet and exceeded the 24 -foot height limit from 1 to 9 feet. The Commission's action to approve the project was called for review by Councilmember Glover, and on January 9, 2001, the City Council approved Variance No. 1237. New Request After project approval, the applicant sought a new design professional to prepare plans for a building permit. The applicant, with the assistance of his new designer, re- evaluated the approved plans and his needs, and concluded that the project should be redesigned. The new plan shows the addition in roughly the same location on the lot as the previous project above the existing garage. However, the addition is set back further from Kings Road by 5' -6" and extends further out over the bluff by approximately 9 feet. The area of the new design has increased from 952 to 1,060 square feet. The addition remains comprised of a new master bedroom, bathroom, closet_and stairway. Staff did not determine that the proposed redesign was in substantial conformance with the previous approval as the revised design further exceeds the approved height. Additionally, Condition No. 1 requiring that the project conform to the approved plans is very specific, leaving little to no ability to.approve a building permit that deviates from the approved plans. Approximately half of the previous plan (the portion closest to Kings Road) was below the 24- foot height limit and the bayward half exceeded the height limit up to approximately 9 feet. Approximately 25% of the revised plan (the portion closest to Kings Road) is below the 24 -foot limit and the bayward remainder will, if approved, exceed the height limit by up to 10.17 feet. The difference in height (1.17) is not overly significant in staffs opinion since it is due to a decrease in the elevation of natural grade as opposed to an increase in the height of the roof. The ultimate height of the roof is actually being decreased by 1 foot 9 inches due to a change in the roof design. The curved roof has been replaced with a flat roof at a lower elevation. The width of the addition remains unchanged from the previous project pursuant to the Commission requiring that the applicant forego future additions that could increase the width of the addition. Two sets of drawings have been prepared by the applicant. The first set of plans depicts the new project (Exhibit No. 5). The second set of plans shows an outline of the previous project and the revised project for comparison purposes (Exhibit No. 6). The redesigned project meets all development standards (parking, setbacks, floor area, etc.) except for building height. Discussion The primary justification for the approval of Variance No. 1237 rested upon the severely sloping topography of the property. The physical constraints of the property remain unchanged and a full discussion of the facts supporting the findings is contained in the attached staff report and minutes dated December 12, 2000 (Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2). Additionally, the width of the addition was important in the consideration as it preserves a portion of the buildable width of the lot at one story when viewed from the street. A compromise was further struck in that the applicant agreed to forego any further additions downslope. The applicant remains committed to fulfilling the conditions of approval as previously adopted with the exception of the approved drawings. The impact of the changed design upon views is dependent upon the vantage point. The two story residences across Kings Road are at a higher elevation than the bayward lots. With the roof being lowered 1 foot 9 inches in overall height, the view from across the street is improved when viewing Navai Residence (PA2002 -007) March 21, 2002 Page 2 distant subjects. When viewing closer subjects, which tend to be at a lower elevation than the project, the extension of the addition further away from the street will effect views especially when looking across the property at an angle. The two abutting properties are lower than the proposed addition, therefore, the addition does not significantly impact their view. The impact upon public views from Kings Road is not significantly changed from the previous design as a pedestrian or person in a vehicle is at lower elevation. From this vantage point, an increased view of blue sky will be a result of the new design. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. The Commission has the option to approve the project as designed by re- affirming the findings and conditions of approval previously adopted with a change to Condition No. 1 making reference to the new plans. Staff has restated the findings and conditions in the attached draft resolution for consideration (Exhibit No. 3). Should the Commission find that the changed project is detrimental to the area due to a diminishment of views, the Commission has the option of denying the applicant's request by making the suggested findings contained in Exhibit No. 6. If the present request is denied, the applicant would still retain the ability to construct the previously approved project subject to the findings and conditions of approval. Lastly, the Commission has the option to modify the request. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director a Exhibits Prepared by: James Campbell Senior Planner 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 7,2000. 2. Excerpt of minutes from the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting (includes the conditions of approval). 3. Draft Resolution for project approval. 4. Findings for denial. 5. Revised plans. 6. Comparison plans. Navai Residence (PA2002 -007) March 21, 2002 Page 3 Exhibit No. 1 Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 7, 2000 i' leW?ogr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road December 7, 2000 James Campbell (949)644 -3210 14 days PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet. ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: • Variance No. 1237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2, PM 51 -7 ZONE: R -1 OWNER: Jim Naval, Newport Beach Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" use. The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use within this designation. • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Minor Alteration- to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). • Variance procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. 1 Vicinity Map W E s ,.:.:.. Subiect Pro .et COAST HyyWY W&gyyyy �{{pp{yy ptl Balboa Bay Club, g z 200 0 200 Feet Variance No. 1237 Navai Residence Subiect Prooerty and Surroundine Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and , attached garage. To the north: Across King Road are single family detached homes To the east: Are single family detached homes To the south: Commercial properties located on West Coast Highway (car wash, auto dealer) To the west: Single family detached homes Variance No. 1237 December 7, 2000 c/ Page 2 b Introduction The subject site is located along Kings Road in Cliff Haven and zoned R -1. The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow the construction of an 952 square foot second story addition to his existing 2,868 square foot single family residence (with an existing 506 square foot garage). The addition exceeds the maximum permitted height limit of 24 feet. The proposed addition to the existing residence is a third bedroom and includes a bath and walk -in closet. Background This item was considered by the Planning Commission on April 13h and May 18`s of this year. On April 13, 2000, the Commission directed the applicant to explore different designs that would avoid a variance or at least minimize the vertical encroachment of the addition above the 24 -foot height limit. The applicant returned on May 18, 2000 with a redesigned project lowering the roof height by 1 foot. The Planning Commission felt that the redesigned project was not responsive to the Commission's direction, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the requested variance, being unable to make affirmative findings pursuant to Chapter 20.91. The applicant appealed the -decision to the City Council, and on July 25, 2000, the City Council directed the case back to the Planning Commission due to the pledge of the applicant to redesign the project. On October 13, 2000, the applicant submitted revised plans for consideration. Analysis The site is a bluff top residential property with steep slopes that slope inward to create a gully as it extends to the southerly rear property line. The site is further constrained by a sudden slope drop -off approximately 27 feet from the front property line. The lot is 176.20 ft. in Iength along the east side property line and 171.96 ft. along the west side of the lot. The area of the lot where the slope falls off abruptly is approximately 145 feet of the length of the lot. Deducting the 145 foot steep slope area measured from the southerly property line and the 10 foot front setback, there is 17 feet of lot depth that is "relatively" flat. The topographical features limit the area of the lot where the addition to the residential structure can reasonably be sited. The revised project is slightly larger in area with the second floor addition slightly wider and therefore larger (952 square feet, 100 additional square feet), but it occupies the same basic position as the previous design. The applicant also proposes to extend the garage closer to the street 5 feet 6 inches thereby adding 121 square foot to the front of the garage. The face of the garage will be 10 feet from the front property line which is the minimum setback. The primary. change in design is the roof. The first roof design had a low sloping roof with the higher end, furthest away from Kings Road. The applicant has reversed the slope of the roof making the highest point at the front of the addition. The roof slopes downward as it progresses away from Kings Road mimicking the site's topography. The highest point of vertical encroachment is approximately 9 feet at the west side roof overhang. The vertical encroachment of the east side roof overhang is approximately 6 feet 9 inches above the 24 foot height limit. The reversal in the roof slope was one option that the Planning Commission identified at its April 13`b meeting as a method of reducing potential view blockage. This change does reduce the vertical encroachment above the height limit and improves the diagonal view across the site from the street. However, the front elevation is approximately 2.5 feet higher than the previous design and is compliant Variance No. 1237 December 7, 2000 Page 3 with the 24 -foot height limitation. The view from directly across the street is more highly effected as a result in the roof change. Staff has reviewed previous variance requests of properties in the vicinity of the subject property and with similar topography, and finds that the subject application is of a similar magnitude to those that the Planning Commission has approved in the past. The height variances range from one foot to 20 feet. Previous applications have also included pitched roofs and decks with third level elevations where portions of the deck or roof exceeded the average roof height. In all but one request, the approvals were granted. The City has approved other height variance requests in this area at 607 Kings Road (3 feet in 1981), 1113 Kings Road (10 feet in 1973), 1101 Kings Road, (20 feet in 1989), 1700 Kings Road (1 foot in 1993) and most recently 1821 Kings Road (8 feet in 1997). The variance requests to exceed the height were permitted due to the topography and the steep slope conditions that exist on those properties. Required Findings for Variance Approval Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find as follows: 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. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 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 Iimitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 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 improvements in the neighborhood. In relation to the above findings, staff believes the special circumstances that apply to this property are the unique topography of the site and the reduced effective lot depth. The site is constrained by the slope as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a second story addition above the existing garage on this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. The City has also approved other similar variance requests to exceed the permitted height on a sloped lot in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. These past variance approvals for increased height were permitted due to the topographical constraint of the properties, therefore it could be viewed as not the granting of special privilege, since the City has granted other similar requests to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on similar lots. Variance No. 1237 December 7, 2000 �� Page 4 The granting of the variance could be determined necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights because without the approval of a variance, the applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without further potentially impacting views from neighboring properties. The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible. Staff feels that, in this particular case, the granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the applicant has designed an addition that is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit. Were the project to use the full height available utilizing the City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be higher than the proposed development, provided the depth of the addition were reduced and a more pitched roof was incorporated. If the depth of the addition were reduced to make it conform to the height restriction, the applicant could design an addition using the full width of the lot which would make the addition larger as viewed from Kings Road. As noted in the previous staff reports, the applicant can design an addition that could further reduce the need to encroach above the height limit. The latest design is one alternative and others do exist. Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, the design minimizes view blockage to a greater degree than the previous design, and staff does not feel that the design is overly obtrusive when viewed from public spaces. The applicant indicated to staff that if the addition were granted, he would be willing to permanently forego future second story additions. This can be enforced through a restrictive covenant releasable only by the Planning Commission or City Council. 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 difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from unique topography that exists in the area and on this particular lot. Without the sloped condition, the applicant could construct the addition within the required height limit without a variance. Recommendation In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff believes that the findings for approval of the variance can be made for the increased height for the reasons as stated above. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Variance No. 1237, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Commission desire to deny this request, findings for denial are attached in Exhibit `B ". Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Directory Prepared by: James Campbell Senior Planner Variance No. 1237 December 7, 2000 I Page 5 l r "" Exhibits 419 0. F401di"B" fog de"irk 3. Letter from the applicant dated October 10, 2000. 4. Excerpt of Planning Commission meeting minutes dated May 18, 2000 5. Planning Commission Staff report dated May 18, 2000 F\ USERS IPU,ASHAREDUPLANCOMUOW,4- I3PCNV I237.DOC Variance No. 1237 December 7, 2000 Page 6 October 10, 2000 Planning commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Ca. 92658 -8915 Re: Variance # 1237 Jim Navai 1201 Kings Road Newport Beach ca. 92663 I am seeking reconsideration of variance # 1237 (original request denied on May, 2000) to allow construction of an 1073 square foot second story addition to existing 2,868 square foot single family residence .Portion of the addition exceed the permitted height limit of 24 feet. In addition I am proposing architectural enhancements to the structure as part of this remodeling. I am making this request following discussion with Mayor Noyse and other members of the City council and following significant modification to the original roof design Additionally, and in response to what I understand was one of the Planning Commission's major concerns, I hereby certify - assuming approval of this variance- I do not intend to build anymore structure on the upper part of my property which would obstruct views in the future. Thank you for consideration of my request. Background City of Newport Beach Staff has analyzed this project and these are some of their findings: Required Findings for Variance Approval: Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance , the Planning Commission must find as follows: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, ,topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the applicant 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 13 P, properties in the vicinity and the same zoning district 4. That the granting of such application will not under circumstances of the particular case materially affect adversely the health or safety of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. In relation to the above findings ,Staff believes the special circumstances that apply to this property are unique topography of the site and the reduce effective lot depth. The site is, constrained by the slop as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a second story addition above the existing garage on this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. The city has also approved other similar variance request to exceed the permitted height on sloped lot in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. These past variance approvals for increased height were permitted due to the topographical constraint of the properties, therefore it could be viewed as not_the. granting of special privilege, since the city has granted other similar request to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on similar lots. The granting of the variance could be determined necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property righte because without the approval of a variance, applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without fiuther potentially impacting views from neighboring properties. The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible. .........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 difficulties and unnecessary hardship resulting from unique topography that existed in the area and on this particular lot. Without the slope condition, the applicant could construct the addition within the required height limit without a variance. FILE COPY City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Naval Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road (Continued from the 4113/00 meeting) Variance No. 1237 Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. Commissioner Kiser asked what could be built without any variance, and what the height and setbacks of the proposed structure would be. Mr. Campbell, Senior Planner explained that the existing setback proposed is 12- feet, the setback requirement is a minimum of 10 -feet. The addition could be pulled 2 feet closer to Kings Road without the need for a variance. The existing structure is currently 4 feet below the 24 -foot height limit (flat roof) at the addition's closest point to Kings Road. The addition could be 10 1/2 feet wider in keeping with the setback requirements. The vertical encroachment as revised is up to a maximum of 9 -feet high away from Kings Road. Jim Navai, 1201 Kings Road, applicant explained that he had been told by the real estate agents when he purchased this home that most people who had asked for a variance, had been granted one by the City. He stated that he then purchased the house based on that information. As this house has only two bedrooms, he worked with an architect who also told him that there should be no problem getting a variance because many had been granted in that neighborhood. He noted that he submitted the architectural plans to the City and that a meeting was held. He pulled the papers for a variance that would allow him to add one master bedroom and bathroom. Since the Planning Commission meeting of April 131h, he has had his architect re -draw his plans to scale down the original project. The architect could not do anything except make it 1 -foot lower, so that we are under 10 -feet. The lower level could not go towards Coast Highway, as it would be too noisy. I talked to my neighbors and they all approve these plans, as'they are less massive and save views and are much shorter than the alternative. Referencing the staff report, he noted that several variances have been approved on Kings Road. The Balboa Bay Club has also requested and received a variance for heights, including a cupola. This variance alters the view from my home as well as others. Denial of my variance could be viewed as unequal treatment. My building would enhance Kings Road and if I don't build it, unfortunately the result is going to be something very unpleasant, boxy, higher, bigger and more massive and won't do anybody any good. I would appreciate it if I can get this variance approved so that I can be proud of what I can do. Dr. Nicholas Yoruw, 1210 Kings Road stated that he opposes this variance. The applicant's property is on the south side of Kings Road and is on a hill. looking at those properties, you find that most homeowners have extended multi -level INDEX Item No. 1 V 1237 Denied 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 closer to Pacific Coast Highway down the slope. The applicant could easily do that. I think that what should be done is to extend one of the two levels, he would not need a variance and would not have to worry about the Balboa Boy Club blocking his view. If the applicant gets his way, he will block my view and everyone else's on the north side of the street. Ali Malisoda, Huntington Beach real estate broker spoke as the buying broker for the applicant. He noted that when they found this property, an investigation was done to see if the house could be expanded. It looked like other homeowners had similar or bigger variances. Based on that information, we felt the applicant would be able to get a variance for his expansion plans. I knew how critical it was. This application seems to be for a smaller variance and should be looked at as it is reasonable and enhances the property. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley noted for the record that he had listened to the tape and read the minutes of the previous meeting, as he was not in attendance. Continuing, he stated that every variance that is either approved or denied is done so on a case by case basis. No variance sets precedence, especially on Kings Road. The hillside on Kings road is dramatically different as you go up and down the road. I visited the site to see what the impacts would be and it is difficult to see. I would like to suggest that story poles be erected to see the impact of this addition. Commissioner Ashley asked if this variance was approved and the construction completed, if a new homeowner wanted to make an addition fo.the front of the house, is there any reason that could be denied? Ms. Clauson answered that if there is nothing in the approvals that would restrict this floor plan, then yes, there would be nothing to restrict a new home owner from coming back and building more onto the property. It does go to the issue that the need for a variance is as the topography requires, and not on the benefit of the design of the project. The code is set up and is what is acceptable in the neighborhood and that is how the zoning has been set for that property as to height, setbacks and is what is allowed to be built. The whole point of a variance is that it is necessary. In this case, it would be necessary because of the topography, not necessary because the real zoning code could create a worse view impact. Commissioner Kiser asked about condition 5, regarding public improvements. Mr. Edmonston answered that this is a standard condition that is placed on all projects normally for a house addition there would not be any improvements unless for instance, the sidewalk out front was severely deteriorated or something of that nature. This condition provides that the applicant could bond for it and proceed with construction. INDEX t� 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 Commissioner Ashley stated he is concerned about a "double whammy'. In this instance, I think that a subsequent buyer could add on to the front portion of the house that would bring it up to the existing code standards so that would be a second loss to the people on the north side of Kings Road. If this variance is approved it would allow the applicant to exceed code standards to get an enlarged facility of his choice. Ms. Clauson added that the zoning is set up as being acceptable. That is what the community relies upon and that is the reason why you only have a variance when there is a need for it. Commissioner Kiser noted that it would not have to be a new property owner who would make this improvement, but this owner with a.subsequent set of plans_ could come on the heels of this, as well. Commissioner Tucker noted that it was irrelevant who was going to live in the additional room, it seems that every variance we have is for the sake of somebody's mother. It is not important to us. We have a series of findings that we have to make in order to justify the variance. One of the findings is a weighing of the hardship on the applicant versus impacts on surrounding neighbors. What had suggested at the last meeting was that you come back with a plan that did as much as you could possibly do to reduce the impacts. As I understand the staff report, you basically lowered the house by a foot; you didn't move it closer to Kings Road or any of the other design considerations that were suggested. The topography for this property is difficult. If a variance request comes before us that doesn't involve straight down hill topography the Planning Commission almost always denies. Hearing about all the variances that the Planning Commission granted, this really isn't true. The one suggestion that I had at the last meeting was that you bring your architect with you tonight, did you do that? He was answered, no. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker said that there is no way to ask the architect if there was a way to further minimize the impacts, so I have a lot of concerns about this variance. It should be to achieve the applicant's purpose, but yet to impact the neighbors as tittle as possible, and I don't have a great deal of comfort that has happened without having the opportunity to probe that with the architect. Commissioner Kiser asked if it was possible to condition the property so that if this variance was granted, further building could not be built towards Kings Road and in the extra 10 and 1/2 feet that we have in width that could be built under the current zoning? Ms. Clauson answered no. If the variance is based upon the design, that is this design is worse than what could be built under the original zoning, then that is not the appropriate basis for the variance. To condition it on not allowing them to build what they are allowed to build in compliance with zoning, there is no mechanism. INDEX 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX Commissioner Ashley noted that a variance is not necessary for this property. The applicant can go ahead and live within the existing building and zoning regulations and expand his house to have the amount of space he would like to have for this family by building fully on the lot as'would be appropriate by adding another level. We would be putting ourselves in some kind of difficulty if we were to approve this variance and at a later date see that somebody could come back and add to the house within the existing code standards. They could have a larger house that would be more deprivational to the interest of the people living on the north side of Kings Road. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to deny Variance No. 1237 for the findings listed in Exhibit B, as well as for the finding stated above. Commissioner Tucker noted that he would be supportive of a variance if the impacts were minimized, I am not inclined to support this variance, but if the applicant wanted to continue this process to go back and do some further re- design. I believe that with a little bit of effort the conditions for a variance could be there, but I don't think that the applicant has tried very hard at this point. Chairperson Selich noted his agreement with comments adding that the Commission gave some strong direction to the applicant last time and it was not complied with and a very half - hearted effort was put forth. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: McDaniel EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Variance No. 1237 FINDINGS: That the granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: The property owner could design an addition that does not extend over the slope, which could meet the permitted height requirements. The existing structure could be redesigned on the lower levels to City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 INDEX provide for the expansion of the living area and not impact the street side elevation of the home and minimize the need for the variance on the street side of the structure. Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography have been able to construct new dwellings, or remodel existing dwellings, within the allowable height limit without the approval of a variance for height or maintain the single story element along the street side. The requested Variance is of a greater magnitude than previously approved by the City on lots with similar topography. • Approval of this variance based upon consideration of the design, which to an extent limits the blocidng of neighbors' views, is not a valid finding of approval of a variance application. A future addition could be designed in full compliance with the Zoning Code, which would restrict views and thereby eliminate the design features used as the basis for approval of the variance. Approval of the variance request coupled with potential future additions built in compliance with the Zoning Code would be detrimental to Kings Road. Prudential California Realty Item No. 2 3301 East Coast Highway M 5059 • Modification Permit No. 5059 Review of Mo ation No. 5059, relative to the proposed sign program for a Continued to June multi- tenant buildin 22nd Chairperson Selich noted t he called up this item to the Planning Commission after approval by the Modific Committee. His reasons for the appeal was concern of the erected signs an at the signs had been constructed and installed prior to the Modifications he The signs are not very high quality and the applicant is asking for an excep to the Sign Regulations. It is my opinion that what we are trying to do in Coron el Mar is upgrade the business district. When exceptions are granted, then we uld look for higher quality signs on these buildings. Ms. Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner noted that when this program was brought to the Modifications Committee, discussion was hel of offered suggestions. Changes were proposed resulting from that discus We conditioned the signage so that the committee would have the opport to review the sign design at a later date. Since the committee made these findin the applicant has made several changes as outlined in the staff report. The 11 aEw %, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ;n PLANNING DEPARTMENT = 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 6 Hearing Date: May 18, 2000 Agenda Item No.: 1 Staff Person: Bob Goldin (949)644 -32019 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road (Continued from the 4/13/00 meeting) PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: • Variance No. 1237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2, PM 51 -7 ZONE: R -1 OWNER: Jim Navai, Newport Beach Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" use. The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use within this designation. • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). • Variance procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. BE Vicinity Map rtr nt Wr 46 M 4 �m [b. ♦r �M �m ' � �Or � t% � •n �V W �� E IF ifr�T Y �l\ $CI1001 a m a R oxa i'•g RSR g s yro� -iu iot_ keg. x��2 Cl1FF DR Sub'ect Pro erty r wax' COAST HWY W yyppryry ry y y y ry µ x - 4 X40 a Balboa Bay Club sa - c 200 0 200 Feet Variance No. 1237 Navai Residence Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and attached garage. To the north: Across King Road are single family detached homes To the east: Are single family detached homes To the south: Commercial properties located on West Coast Highway (car wash, auto dealer) To the west: Single family detached homes Variance No. 1237 May 18.2WO Page 2 Background This item was continued from the April 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to consider revising his plans and addressing the concerns raised at the meeting. This report will focus only on the revisions to the plans as a result of the last meeting. The Planning Commission report from the April 13'h meeting is attached as Exhibit "C" that further details the request. The subject site is located along Kings Road in Cliff Haven and zoned R -1. The current single family dwelling was constructed in 1974. The project, as designed, met all applicable R -1 development standards in effect at that time. Since 1974, the City has modified the height limitations in the R -1 zone from 35 feet maximum to 24 feet maximum. Analysis The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of an 852 square foot second story addition to his existing 2,868 square foot single fairiily residence (with an existing 506 square foot garage) of which portions of the addition exceed the permitted height limit of 24 feet. The addition would add a master bedroom, bath and walk -in closet. In addition, the applicant is proposing architectural enhancements to the structure as part of the remodeling efforts. The revised plans are attached for the Planning Commission's review as Exhibit "D ". Since the April 13`h Planning Commission meeting, staff has met with the applicant on numerous occasions to explain the concerns raised by the Commission and the area residents and suggested various ways that the project could be redesigned to minimize the height encroachment and still accommodate the applicant's needs. It was staffs direction to try to reduce the encroachment as much as possible. To assist the applicant, staff suggested the following options for the applicant and his architect to explore: • Reversing the roof design to have the high point of the roof in front and the low point at the rear, which would result in more massing as viewed from the street, but less when viewed at an oblique angle and would reduce the encroachment over the 24 foot height limitation. • Reconfiguring of the front elevation to create more of a split -level appearance as viewed from the street. This could be accomplished by offsetting and lowering the finished floor of the new addition, but retaining the existing garage's finished floor. It could also be accomplished by creating a single story element on part of the addition on the west side of. the lot, rather than the addition as proposed being all two -story elements. This would result in less massing as viewed from the street and a reduced encroachment over a portion of the 24 foot height limitation on the west side of the proposed addition; • Reconfiguring of the floor plan to move the bathroom and closet areas to the west side of the addition, while reducing the depth of the addition and extending the bedroom further to the west side of the lot. This results in a reduction in the encroachment over the slope, but increases the width of the building as viewed from the street; Variance No. 1237 May 18, 2000 Page 3 * Moving the entire addition closer to the street, reducing the front yard area to the minimum setback. This option would reduce the encroachment over the 24 foot height limitation; • Reducing the distance between the roof overhang at the rear and the fascia projection just below the roof overhang, thus reducing the encroachment over the sloped area. Each of these options alone or together would help to reduce the overall encroachment of the addition over the slope. The applicant has now resubmitted plans that are basically the same as those plans previously reviewed by the Commission, except that the overall height has been reduced by one foot, from 12 feet in height to 11 feet, on the downslope side of the upper story. This one foot reduction was accomplished by reducing the plate height of the downslope wall, of the addition and lowering the slope of the roof. The applicant preferred the last option listed above as the only means to address the Planning Commission's concerns about the encroachment. This reduction results in the building now encroaching between 1 to 9 feet above the permitted height, rather than between 1 -10 feet as previously reviewed by the Commission on April 13, 2000. The horizontal encroachment is identical to the original proposal as the applicant chose not to reduce the depth of the addition. The square footage, floor plans and elevations are also the same as before. The applicant has also submitted a revised letter of justification attached as Exhibit "E ". His position is that the variance is a better alternative for the neighborhood than building a structure that complies with the City's height requirements. According to him, to construct a structure that meets his needs and still complies with codes would be higher in the front portion of the lot, block more views, and be a bulkier design than the project designed with the variance. In addition, the applicant has provided five letters of support from residents in the area, which are attached as Exhibit "G ". Project Development Characteristics Table (Italics reflect revisions to the plans from the April 1P meeting) Variance No. 1237 May 18, 2000 Page 4 �Y EXISTING PROPOSED Gross Land Area 9,588 sq. ft. 9,588 sq. ft. Buildable Area 6,716 sq. ft. 6,716 sq. ft Permitted Gross Structural Area 2,868 sq. ft. existing including garage: (2 x Buildable Area: 2,868 sq. ft. 852 sq. ft. proposed addition 13,432 sq. ft.) 506 sq. ft. garage 4,266 sq. ft. total Building Height: 24 foot average roof height Flat roof with portions of the second floor addition that ranges from 24 ft to 31 ft * J above grade. *A reduction of 1 foot from previous design. Setbacks for main structure: Front: (Kings Road) 10 ft 10 ft. Sides: 4 ft 4 ft Rear: 10 ft. 23 ft. Parking provided: 2 enclosed garage spaces 2 enclosed garage spaces (Italics reflect revisions to the plans from the April 1P meeting) Variance No. 1237 May 18, 2000 Page 4 �Y It is staffs position that the applicant has not fully complied with the Commission's direction to reduce the encroachment as much as possible. There were design options offered to the applicant that could further reduce the encroachment over the 24 foot height limitation. However, as indicated in the applicant's most recent letter, he feels he has provided a redesign that does address the Commission's direction by reducing the overall height by one additional foot. It's the applicant's perspective that he has designed the addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible. The applicant has met with his many of his neighbors and has support from five residents in the area as indicated in the attached letters. Staff believes that the findings to support the variance as redesigned can made based primarily on the unique topography of the applicant's tot. Staff would refer the Commission back to the April 13u' staff report on pages 5 and 6 (attached) that details the required findings and the justification to support the variance. However, there are several design options that can reduce the amount of encroachment above the height limit, potentially eliminating the need for the variance entirely. This fact could lead to a determination that approval of the variance would be granting a special privilege. Conversely, the City has approved similar variance applications in the past where the topography constrains the ability to construct within the 24 -foot height limit,. and denial of_the variance could be viewed as unequal treatment. The Planning Commission must be able to make all four of the required findings in order to approve the variance. If the Commission's determination is that one or more of the, findings cannot be made, then staff would recommend the variance be denied. Recommendation In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report and the April 13th report, staff believes that the findings for approval of the variance can be made for the increased height for the reasons as stated above. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Variance No. 1237, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Commission be unable to make the required findings for approval, findings for denial are attached in Exhibit `B ". Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Pla ing Director .1 Prepared by: BOB GOLDIN Project Planner Attachments: C. Planning Commission Report of April 13, 2000 (Previously transmitted) E. Applicant's Letter of Justification F. Letter of Opposition G. Letters of Support PaUSERSWLMSHAREMI PL.WCOM200015. 18MV1237.DOC Variance No. 1237 May 18, 2000 Page 5 M 05/10/2020 09:07, 9496505090( - nay 09 00 06156p Hli rtalekzadeh tfay e, 2000 oily Hall 3300 Newport Bhd. Newport Beach. Co. 92558 Re: Vsdence No 1237 Jm Naval 1201 Kings hid. JAPISHEED Nr:VUI PAGE 01 714 -9'aJ -4229 p.l RECEiVEt7 By PLANNING D^OARTMEMT C1/�- Y i4 1-.,EACH kill i1A> r 0 2069 ol,A gig191i01111�.i1i213i415i5 In response to the panning commissions concem regarding the above vadance (Valance No. 1237),1 had several meetings with my Architect. He was tangy able to lower the elevation by a floor. Since from the beginning vie untended to keep the adddon to the posalDte minimum eiza, thetefor at this point them vWa not much more that he could do to downsize the Project Rather. Also the topography. and filter major rastrictlone made it dillcul doing any other changes vdthout serious compromise on the function and design. All of the neighbors that I have contacted agree that I must "Plain to the commissioners In details the aaemathe to the proposed Plan. The only other practicaf design wadi be to go as close as to the kings iii. as possible considering the set hack, this would glue me room to build on a /at area vdtltout nand of a vadance. The problem with 1M7 design Is that it Is much fnore Intrusive, bk)eks more views and it viii how to be art the way close the property over 45 toot tong at least 24' high (possibly 29 fast with a pitch"since there is orgy 17 feet Rat area, theta would not be any space to consider any dataling to enhance the design, as s result K boll be a big stucco bon. Although I v9d haw a better Mew Irom Inside of such sts cu uto, but tram the Kings Rd. it will bo an Unploward Wiling to look st. This Is the reason why all the neighbors that know about both options, preW it* ealedrg dealgn, since It Is much smaller and Defter design whiett annarms the neighborhood. At this point 1 should also nwnaon that the city had approved other height variants requests to IOhgs Rd. UP to 20 teat- Most recently 1821 Kings M. (under corsttuctton) hsa apraowl of 0 bet valance. This briltang Is much larger than my bul" and the addition and yet the variance was approved. This would he the m ce critical point If I am dePrk,ed of the same coraideration that was given to :try neiptlbor. A13o Balboa Hey Club was given savant helgdt variance Pannk. 7hslr new structure addition Is directly In Roma of my bulidbg and will be oboinxting tarts my nay Mew and the vicar Rom Kings Pod. pamwemby. ?hair vadance Includes a 26 foal height variance for a Capda. Again not giving Me s 9 feat wdante for my lemlly use seems unfair. R is also Important to consider that as per staSs rapon granting the permit is necessary for pressnatlon and my erIjoymaht of substantial Property rights. And that the granting of this epplcetion is consistent with the Purposes of the totle (Sec.20.91.0358 ) and will not constitute a grant of special p#gWW inconsistent with the limlterio ns an Weer properties in the 4cin ry and come Zoning district, Because of special circumstances applicable to the popetty, buoktd(ng size, shops, topography, location or surroundings, char strict application of the above coda dapiw my Property of 04109as enjoyed by other property in the Ncinrty and under identical zoning ciasagoation. The staff report indicates that past wrfmcs aM"Is for Increased hight were permitted due to topogriphicat constraint of the Properties therefor R Could in viewed as mac granting of spedet ptiJiego, since rho 'City has grerdad doter similar request to excwA the pemritted belght due to sloped conditions existing on similar lots. Flnedly consWating all circumstances and the tvvo possibia cpuota, It Is quite apparent tna ad design is by tar a better, lose Intrusive and more appealing for the Khgs Rd. than the anernetiva s even steal r than the ones ekaady approved br Whets. j RespeetOdly. Jim J. Nevi 1201 Kings Pd. Newport Beach, Ca. �vrq, r.ta>teo r+.r. a.w.ew�e rwl. t I to Vincent P. Roman, PE 810 Kings Road Nexport Beach, California 92663 (949)631 -8758, (949) 631 -2380 FAX E-mail. vroman 13CcNiome. cont April 13, 2000 Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Vincent Roman. I live at 810 Kings Road, Newport Beach. I oppose the variance for 1201 Kings Road for the following reasons: 1. The fact that the applicant is limited to building to a maximum height of 24' does not deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The applicant has the ability to build down the slope as much square footage as is allowable under the current standards. The height restriction may preclude the applicant from building that particular building on the site, but all properties limit building design. 2. The approval of a variance grants this property owner special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. This property is similar to most of the properties on the bluff side of Kings Road, and has the same topographical limitations as those properties. Approval of this variance therefore grants the owner special rights for this property not enjoyed by other bluff -side owners not granted variance. 3. The approval of the variance will affect adversely the public welfare in the neighborhood. Kings Road is a unique neighborhood, and as I am sure you are aware, has been embroiled in major disputes regarding building heights. Building height is a sensitive issue and affects the wellbeing of the residents, even for buildings that meet the requirements of the code. Granting this variance will cause griefto other residents. 4. By granting this variance and other variances on the bluff -side of Kings Road, the planning commission is setting precedent on Kings Road without the benefit of the due process required to develop zoning ordinances. The issue of building heights on Kings Road is a significant issue that needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission aside from the subject of this variance. I have a letter from one of my neighbors, Mr. Bruce D'EHscu, which presents his views on the problems facing Kings Road and suggests a review of the Oakland city ordinances developed following the devastating fires of a few years ago. Oakland also experienced many of the redevelopment issues facing Kings Road including large homes burnt on varying topographies, down hill splits and view preservation. fto This is an issue, which must be addressed as the problems will not "go away" if we ignore it. I would be happy to work with the Planning Commission to develop a workable plan for the area. Sincerely, Vincent P. Roman, PE �1 f Robert L. Whitney, 1211 Kings Road, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 May 8, 2000 To whom it May Concern Re: Variance #1237 Dear Persons, I am in favor of allowing Mr. Navai's construction permit with the variances he requests. Numerous residences on Kings Road have gotten variances and just recently The Balboa Bay Club got a variance to build beyond the parameters of the code. Why not Mr. Navai? I feel that what he has purposed is far more appealing than what he would have to do if he doesn't get the variance. I have no objection to Mr. Navai being granted this variance. Sincerely, Robert L. Whitney J91K April 25 2000 City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Ca. 92658 Re: Variance No. 1237 1201 Kings Rd. for Mr. Jim Navai We live next door to Mr. Jim Navai (west side) We understand during last-several years anyone that has asked for a hieght varinance up to 20 feet has recieved a permit for it. Mr. Navai- should be given the same concideration. Not giving him the permit could result building of a much larger addition that will obstruct even more views. ^i /G.] /VV A Alan Miller 1510 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 To Whom It May Concern: Re: 1201 Kings Rd. Variance Request Please be aware as a homeowner on Kings Road, I am not opposed to the granting of variance requests as long as those requests are minor. They - - - - - -- -must - not adversely affect the homeowners on the inland side of the street more than if the homeowner was to build within the allowed envelope. It is my understanding that the request by the homeowner at 1201 Kings Road, although outside of the building envelope, will have less of an impact on adjacent owners than if he were to build to the extent of the building envelope. I think he is making a reasonable effort to be a good neighbor and mitigate the concerns of those homes directly affected by his addition. Sincerely, Alan Miller 4Y The Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Ca. 92658 Re: Variance No. 1237 1201 Kings Rd. for Jim Navai `fir`! I live 3 houses from mr. Navai. During the past few years I have been witness to several people requesting height variance, which they all recieved .Mr. Navai's additions seems one of the smaller addition I have seen. It is only fair to let Mr. Navai, build his addition as per his request. Neriya Yamtobian 1101 Kings Rd. Newport Beach Ca. 92663 A 31 W RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF MF:VMI�OT cEA CH MAY 01 2060 AM PM `T181911Q 111112111213141516 Apri 126,2000 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach Ca 92658 -8915 Re: Variance 91237 1201 Kings Road — Jim Naval In my humble opinion ,granting the above -named variance will have the least impact on the view corridor than building to the codes with a massive second story across.the lot. Sind Keith Hosfiel 1300 Kings Road Newport Beach Cc: Jim Naval Exhibit No. 2 Excerpt of minutes from the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting (includes the conditions of approval) SUBJECT: Naval Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road • Variance No. 1237 Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet. Chairperson Selich stated that this Variance application had been previously heard by the Planning Commission and was denied. It had been appealed to the City Council who referred it back to the Planning Commission to try and work with the applicant to come up with a different design solution for the project. Commissioner Gifford and myself worked with the applicant on this project and met with him a number of times. One of the observations we made was that there was an area on the property down below that was buildable, but it did have some restrictions on it in terms of noise from the highway and topographical constraints. However, we suggested to the applicant that if he would modify the rootline on his project as suggested by the Planning Commission and if he would agree to a restriction that he would not do any other additions to the property that it may be appropriate to approve a variance on the property. The applicant indicated this was acceptable to him, as he only wanted the additional bedroom suite on the second floor. He then distributed a set of revised findings and conditions for the Planning Commission to review. He then proceeded to discuss revisions to the findings and conditions in the staff report: Finding 4 b) Amend to add the front portion of the site 4 d) add, The site has additional buildable area below the existing structure that could accommodate the proposed addition within the height limits. 3: Item 6 Variance No. 1237 Approved 35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no m`bre than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambieZ ftt oise level is higher: FILE COPY Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 .m. 10:00 .m. and 7:00 a.m. "Interior exterior in xe ferior Residential property: 45 d'Ba, 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA Residential Property located F*' Within 100 feet of a commercial - Property: 45dBA 60 dBA `* 45dBA 50 dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60 dBA 45dBA `� -,, 50 dBA Commercial Property: N/A 65dBA N/A 60dB9...... SUBJECT: Naval Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road • Variance No. 1237 Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet. Chairperson Selich stated that this Variance application had been previously heard by the Planning Commission and was denied. It had been appealed to the City Council who referred it back to the Planning Commission to try and work with the applicant to come up with a different design solution for the project. Commissioner Gifford and myself worked with the applicant on this project and met with him a number of times. One of the observations we made was that there was an area on the property down below that was buildable, but it did have some restrictions on it in terms of noise from the highway and topographical constraints. However, we suggested to the applicant that if he would modify the rootline on his project as suggested by the Planning Commission and if he would agree to a restriction that he would not do any other additions to the property that it may be appropriate to approve a variance on the property. The applicant indicated this was acceptable to him, as he only wanted the additional bedroom suite on the second floor. He then distributed a set of revised findings and conditions for the Planning Commission to review. He then proceeded to discuss revisions to the findings and conditions in the staff report: Finding 4 b) Amend to add the front portion of the site 4 d) add, The site has additional buildable area below the existing structure that could accommodate the proposed addition within the height limits. 3: Item 6 Variance No. 1237 Approved 35 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 However, the topography of the site makes it difficult to use this buildable area to construct the proposed addition without adverse impacts from Coast Highway noise. Additionally the buildable area does not offer equivalent view opportunities afforded to other similarly located sites on Kings Road that do not have the some topographical constraints and can build two stores at the top of the lot. 6 c) be eliminated - as every lot is evaluated on its own merits. Condition 1 - shall read, 'Approval of this variance is specific to the development shown on the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations ("Plans') dated December 7, 2000. The development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the Plans and no further addition shall be permitted on the property unless an amendment to this Variance is approved by the Planning Commission. Any further additions to the structure may be permitted only if the "addition permitted by this variance is removed and the structure restored to its condition at the time of the approval of this variance or demolished. At such time the structure is restored to its present condition or demolished the applicant or future owner may then do any remodel or new construction in conformance to the zoning and building codes in effect at that time. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a clear set of plans of the structure as it presently exists including floor plan and elevations so that any future removal of the addition approved by this variance, it if ever takes place, can be clearly identified. A restrictive covenant, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, shall be recorded against the property to implement this condition. Continuing, he noted that this deals with the variance itself. In terms of the design of the structure, the applicant has done a good job of lowering the roof on the bay side of the property that we feel the roof should curve back down towards the street on the front side of the property. (he passed out a sketch) Public comment was opened: Mr. Jim Naval, 1201 Kings Road applicant thanked the Commission for all their work. After reviewing the sketch, he agreed to pulling the front of the roofline back. Dr. Nicholas Yaru, 1210 Kings Rod noted his objection to this variance and asked that it be denied. He was present at previous hearings and as a result, he and a neighbor composed a petition, distributed to Planning Commission, that was signed by 31 homeowners who object to any variance above the 24 foot height limit. The rest of the neighbors are in a deficit in regards to the value of properties and views if this height variance is granted. The homeowners believe that when homes were built and modified on Kings Road, we knew that there were restrictions. Now, to have you grant a variance for somebody because it is noisy, is trite and not proper. We are saying that the variance should be denied and Mr. Navai should abide by the some rules that all the rest 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX of us did. Commissioner Kiser noted that this addition could be built so that it would be larger and block the view without any variance at all. Are you aware of that? Dr. Yaw answered that he is aware that this building already has two stories and would now be three stores. There are balconies on the back of the building that could be modified into additional rooms without requiring any variance whatsoever. I as a homeowner do not see why he can not address his problem and make his changes in a manner that meets the regulations and codes that all the rest of us have done. He could easily modify that first and second floor with existing balconies into rooms. Mr. Naval told me that now that the Balboa Bay Club is building up higher, that he is going to have his view impaired. He is concerned about that, but not concerned about the rest of us who are further back from him. Commissioner Kiser stated that the applicant could actually build an addition that would run out wider and closer to the side property lines. One of the things we have to grapple with is competing concerns about what is less detrimental or could be done without a variance. Discussion continued. Bill McCullough, 1410 Kings Road stated that he understands that the house could be built so as to obstruct more view. As one of the homeowners who signed the petition, all we ask for is that whatever they can built within the guidelines, let them build. Even if it takes more view than what the proposal is. That is all we asked before and is all we ask now, to stay within the guidelines of the City. I bought my home five years ago with the understanding that the south side could go 29 or 24, that is what I am asking everybody to stay with on that side. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted that approving a variance is abiding by the rules of the City, it is part of the Zoning Code. A variance is a technique whereby the Planning Commission is able use independent judgement to deal with difficult sites. Certainly these sites along the bluff fronts that have steep topography are difficult and it is virtually impossible to have a standardized set of rules that can apply to each and every site. The Planning Commission can evaluate each of these sites on a case by case basis to make an equitable judgement on the property. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Variance 1237 with the Findings and Conditions of Approval as read into the record. Ms. Temple noted Condition 1 to be revised, the approved site plan, floor plan d elevations (Plans dated December 7, 2000 as revised by the Planning Commission). 30 31 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX Commissioner Kiser noted that the word, that, should be added as part of the text in the second line after, At such time... I don't see a dimension on how far the roof is to be cantered down towards the street. That should be clarified as to how far the roof is to go on the Kings Road side. Chairperson Selich noted that the dotted line on the sketch is meant to indicate where the roof is to be brought down. The dash line is the elevation that is the top of the flat portion of the overhand at the Coast Highway side of the property. Commissioner Tucker then explained the Variance procedure for the benefit of the audience. Ayes: McDaniel , Kiser, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: Agajanian Absent: None Exhibit No. 1 Findings and Conditions of Approval for Variance No. 1237 i di s: That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single - family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Family Residential designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. The special circumstances applicable to the property that the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification are: a) The unique topography of the site of the lot restricts the ability to comply with the height requirements. b) The front portion of the site is additionally constrained by the slope as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a 31 39 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 lla]4:1 second story addition on the front of this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. C) The addition is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from Kings Road. d) The site has additional buildable area below the existing structure that could accommodate the proposed addition within the height limits. However, the topography of the site makes H difficult to use this buildable area to construct the proposed addition without adverse impacts from Coast Highway noise. Additionally the buildable area does not offer equivalent view opportunities afforded to other similarly located sites on Kings Road that do not have the same topographical constraints and can build two stories at the top of the lot. S. The approval of Variance No. 1237 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of-the applicant for the following reasons: a) The applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. b) The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree possible. C) The proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of height requirements could result in an addition that is substantially higher than currently proposed or too small to be feasible or desirable for the owner. 6. 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 some zoning district for the following reasons: a) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. b) The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography that exists in the area and on this lot. H siFAilaFteryegr y. C) Without the sloped condition, the applicant could construct on addition within the required height limit. The granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: 32 31 0-t JJ,.'. _ I' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 a) The applicant. has designed an addition that is generally.in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. b) When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit. c) Were the project to use the full height available utilizing the City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be higher than the proposed development, provided the depth of the addition were reduced and a more pitched roof was incorporated. d) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, staff does not feel that it will significantly harm the neighborhood. e) Other two and three -story elevation residences exist in the area along Kings Road and as viewed from West Coast Highway. Conditions: Approval of this variance is specific to the development shown on the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations ( "Plans ") dated December 7, 2000 as revised by the Planning Commission. The development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the Plans and no further addition shall be permitted on the property unless an amendment to this Variance is approved by the Planning Commission. Any further additions to the structure may be permitted only ff the addition permitted by this variance is removed and the structure restored to its condition at the time of the approval of this variance or demolished. At such time that the structure is restored to its present condition or demolished the applicant or future owner may then do any remodel or new construction in conformance to the zoning and building codes in effect of that time. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a clear set of plans of the structure as it presently exists including floor plan and elevations so that any future removal of the addition approved by this variance, if it ever takes place, can be clearly identified. A restrictive covenant, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, shall be recorded against the property to implement this condition. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements are constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way and that an 33 INDEX J6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 encroachment agreement be executed for all non - standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Kings Road right -of- way and any easements. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That 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. 7. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 8. That all work within public rights -of -way and easements be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 10. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Starbucks 2801 East Coast Highway • Planning Director's Use Permit 69 and • Outdoor Dining 76 Planning Commission review of staff approval of a request to expand an existing full service small scale eating and drinking establishment into a neighboring tenant space. Increase interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats, increase exterior seating from 8 seats to 12 seats and provide separate restroom facilities. This application will replace the existing Planning Director's Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 39 and their amendments. Commissioner Kranzley called up this item for Planning Commission review. Commissioner Tucker was recused from this matter due to a conflict of interest. 34 INDEX Item 7 PDUP 69 OD 76 Approved 41 Exhibit No. 3 Draft Resolution for project approval RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH VARIANCE NO. 2002 -002 FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED 1201 KINGS ROAD (PA2002 -007). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Jim Navai with respect to property located at 1201 Kings Road (PA2002 -007) and legally described as Parcel 2, PM 51 -71. The applicant seeks approval of a Variance to construct an addition to a single family residence that exceeds the 24 -foot height limit established by Chapter 20.65 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 2. A public hearing was held on March 21, 2002, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meetings was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single - family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Family Residential designation. 2. The project has been reviewed and it has been detemvned that it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet). 3. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. The special circumstances applicable to the property are that the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification because: a) The unique topography of the site of the lot restricts the ability to comply with the height requirements. b) The front portion of the site is additionally constrained by the slope as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a second story addition on the front of this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. C) The addition is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from Kings Road. d) The site has additional buildable area below the existing structure that could accommodate the proposed addition within the height limits. However, the topography of the site makes it difficult to use this buildable area to construct the Aq proposed addition without adverse impacts from Coast Highway noise. Additionally the buildable area does not offer equivalent view opportunities afforded to other similarly located sites on Kings Road that do not have the same topographical constraints and can build two stories at the top of the lot. 5. The approval of Variance No. 2002 -002 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant for the following reasons: a) The applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. b) The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree possible. C) The proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of height requirements could result in an addition that is substantially higher than currently proposed or too small to be feasible or desirable for the owner. 6. 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 for the following reasons: a) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. b) The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships resulting from the unique topography that exists in the area and on this lot. C) Without the sloped condition, the applicant could construct an addition within the required height limit. 7. The granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The applicant has designed an addition that is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. b) When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit. C) Were the project to use the full height available utilizing the City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be higher than the proposed development, provided the depth of the addition were reduced and a more pitched roof was incorporated. d) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, it will not significantly harm the neighborhood. e) Other two and three -story elevation residences exist in the area along Kings Road and as viewed from West Coast Highway. Lb Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 2002 -002 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) 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 21s` DAY OF MARCH, 2002. l M Larry Tucker, Chairman Earl McDaniel, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: q(P Exhibit "A" Conditions of approval for Variance No. 2002 -002 1201 Kings Road Conditions: Approval of this variance is specific to the development shown on the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations ( "Plans ") dated October 15, 2001. The development shall be constructed in substantial conformance to the Plans and no further addition shall be permitted on the property unless an amendment to this Variance is approved by the Planning Comtnission. Any further additions to the structure may be permitted only if the addition permitted by this variance is removed and the structure restored to its condition at the time of the approval of this variance or demolished. At such time that the structure is restored to its present condition or is demolished, the applicant or future owner may then do any remodel or new construction in conformance to the zoning and building codes in effect at that time. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a clear set of plans of the structure as it presently exists including floor plan and elevations so that any future removal of the addition approved by this variance, if it ever takes place, can be clearly identified. A restrictive covenant, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, shall be recorded against the property to implement this condition. 2. Two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. All public improvements shall be constructed if required in accordance with applicable Ordinances and the Public Works Department requirements. 4. An encroachment permit shall be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way and an encroachment agreement shall be executed for all non - standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Kings Road right -of -way and any easements. 5. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. 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. 7. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. X11 8. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 9. This variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. Variance No. 1237 approved on December 7, 2001 is null and void. IWA CV Exhibit No. 4 Findings for denial 5t° Findings for Denial Variance No. 2002 -002 The granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: a) The property owner could design an addition in a similar location that does not extend over the slope, which could meet the permitted height requirements. b) The existing structure could be redesigned or added to on lower levels to provide for the expansion of the living area and not impact the street side elevation of the home, which would minimize or eliminate the need to exceed the 24 -foot height limit: C) Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography have been able to construct new dwellings, or remodel existing dwellings, within the allowable height limit without the need to deviate from the 24 -foot height limit d) The applicant presently enjoys a substantial property right as the property is presently developed with a 2,868 square foot, two -story residence. The strict application of the zoning code does not deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of the property as the present use will remain. 50a Exhibit No. 5 Revised plans (Separate from report) h3 Exhibit No. 6 Comparison plans (Separate from report) 5 "'