HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrumbaugh Residence (PA2002-001)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: May 23, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 1
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Todd M. Weber
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3209
Appeal Period: 14 days after date of
(949) 644.3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 ` action
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Brumbaugh Residence (PA2002 -001)
201 Apolena Avenue
SUMMARY: Request to construct a new single - family dwelling, portions of which would
encroach within the required side, front and rear yard setbacks. A front entry,
kitchen and second floor balcony are proposed to encroach between 2 and 4-
foot, 6- inches within the 10 -foot setback adjacent to Apolena Avenue. A
two -car garage and a portion of the first and second floor living areas are
proposed to encroach 15 feet within the required 20 -foot front yard setback
adjacent to Park Avenue. A 7 -foot encroachment for the building is
proposed within the required rear yard setback along the northerly property
line.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Uphold, reverse or modify the decision of the Modifications Committee
approving Modification Permit No. 2002 -032 (PA2002 -001).
OWNER/
APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh, Newport Beach
LOCATION: The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park
Avenue and Apolena Avenue on Balboa Island.
Background
On April 4, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 2002 -001 to permit a single
family residence to be constructed at the project site that exceeds the 1.5 floor area limit.
Associated with the project is a companion application (Modification Permit No. 2002 -032)
requesting deviations from the front, rear and 10 -foot setback on Apolena Avenue. The
Modification Permit was referred to the Modifications Committee for action by the Planning
Commission.
On May 8, 2002, the Modifications Committee approved the request, which was revised from the
plans previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. On May 9, 2002, Commissioner
McDaniel requested that this project be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Discussion
The applicant revised the project in response to the approval of the Variance and the direction
given by the Commission on April 4, 2002 regarding setback encroachments. The area of the
proposed residence was reduced to 2,495 square feet as authorized by the Variance. The
encroachment within the Apolena setback has been reduced by 4 feet on both the ground and
second floor. A 7 -foot setback is now provided on the first level for living area with two support
columns for the entry setback 6 feet. The second level living area is setback the required 10 feet
with a proposed balcony encroaching 3 feet into the setback. The encroachment of the garage and
living area into the front yard facing Park Avenue remains unchanged from the previously
reviewed project. The garage is proposed to be setback 5 feet from Park Avenue when 20 feet is
required. The second level abutting Park Avenue is setback 7 feet. The encroachment within the
rear yard (north side) remained unchanged at 3 feet. However, the Modifications Committee
required that the fireplace proposed to be located within the suggested 3 -foot setback be
eliminated. The attached approval letter from the Modifications Committee identifies each
specific encroachment for clarity with its location, description, width and depth.
The plans attached to this report have been revised from the plans approved by the Modifications
Committee.. The plans now reflect the elimination of the fireplace encroachment by placing it
within the exterior wall of the first level. Furthermore, the applicant has increased the setback of
the second level living area by 1 additional foot, providing 4 feet to the property line, due to the
change in the fireplace /chimney location.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the decision of the Modifications
Committee and take whatever action that is deemed appropriate. Should the Commission desire
to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee and approve Modification Permit No.
2002 -032, staff recommends that a motion to that effect should include the specific changes
incorporated in the plans as presented to the Commission at this meeting.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Prepared by:
TODD M. WEBER
Associate Planner
Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 4, 2002 (with exhibits as noted).
Excerpt of Minutes from April 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting.
Resolution No. 1556 approving Variance No. 2001 -001.
Approval letter for Modification Permit No. 2002 -032.
Revised Plans (separate)
Brumbaugh Residence (MD2002 -032 - PA2002 -001)
May 23, 2002
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNINO DEPARTMENT
u _ = 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
�'i +FOa NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Hearing Date: April 4, 2002
Agenda Item: 6
Staff Person: Todd M. Weber,
949- 644 -3209
Lppeal Period: 14 days after flital action
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Brumbaugh Residence (PA2002 -001)
201 Apolena Avenue
SUMMARY: Request for a Variance to exceed the established floor area limit and a
Modification Permit to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard
setback; 7 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback; and 6 feet, 10 inches into
the setback along Apolena Avenue, for a new single — family dwelling.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Approve, modify or deny Variance No. 2002 -001 and Modification Permit
No. 2002 -032 (PA2002 -001).
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ZONING
DISTRICT:
Background
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh, Newport Beach
The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park
Avenue and Apolena Avenue on Balboa Island.
Easterly 40 feet of Lot 1 & 2, Block 7, Section 2 FILE cop Y
Two - Family Residential
R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family Residential)
This item was continued from the March 21" meeting at the request of the applicant. The staff
report from the March 21" Planning Commission meeting, which contains a complete analysis of
the project, is also attached for the Commission's consideration (Exhibit A). Since the staff
report was completed, staff received some additional comments in writing regarding the
requested Variance. The first item is a copy of a letter from the project architect that responds to
the prepared Planning Commission staff report dated March 21, 2002 (Exhibit B). The second
item is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Baker, who reside at 124 Coral Avenue, in opposition to the
request (Exhibit Q. The last item is a copy of written response from Ms. Farason, who resides at
122 Amethyst Avenue, to Commissioner McDaniel on the copy of the public notice she received
(Exhibit D). None of these subsequent information items warranted change in the original staff
recommendation.
Exhibit No. 1 3
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assist ay; (city Manager
Exhibits
Prepared by:
TODD M. WEBER
PI
Associate r
A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 21, 20021,
B. Letter from the project architect, Mr. Ian Harrison, responding to the March 21" staff
report.
C. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Baker in opposition to the request.
D. Response from Ms.- Farason in opposition to the project.
F:',USE.RS\PLN'\Shared"P.k's,PAs - "cc
Mr. &ILvIrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002-00 1)
March 21, 2002
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit No. A
Original Staff Report and Exhibits
Hearing Date: March 21, 2002
Agenda Item: 5
Staff Person: Todd M. Weber,
949 - 644 -3209
Lppeal Period: 14 days after -final action
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Brumbaugh Residence (PA2002 -001)
201 Apolena Avenue
SUMMARY: Request for a Variance to exceed the established floor area limit and a
Modification Permit to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard
setback; 7 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback; and 6 feet, 10 inches into
the setback along Apolena Avenue, for a new single — family dwelling.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:.
Approve, modify or deny Variance No. 2002 -001 and Modification Permit
No. 2002 -032 (PA2002 -001).
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh, Newport Beach
4
The property is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Park
Avenue and Apolena Avenue on Balboa Island.
Easterly 40 feet of Lot 1 & 2, Block 7, Section 2
GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential
ZONING
DISTRICT: R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family residential)
Introduction and Background
Mr. and Mrs. Brumbaugh have submitted a Variance and Modification Permit request associated
with the redevelopment of their residential property at 201 Apolena Avenue on Balboa Island.
The applicant plans to demolish the existing residence and construct a new 2,583 square foot
residence. As stated above, the project exceeds the maximum floor area limit (VA2002 -001) and
the proposed residence does not conform to the applicable setbacks (MD2002 -032).
I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�a�WPpa @
e
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Hearing Date: March 21, 2002
Agenda Item: 5
Staff Person: Todd M. Weber,
949 - 644 -3209
Lppeal Period: 14 days after -final action
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Brumbaugh Residence (PA2002 -001)
201 Apolena Avenue
SUMMARY: Request for a Variance to exceed the established floor area limit and a
Modification Permit to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard
setback; 7 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback; and 6 feet, 10 inches into
the setback along Apolena Avenue, for a new single — family dwelling.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
OWNER/
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:.
Approve, modify or deny Variance No. 2002 -001 and Modification Permit
No. 2002 -032 (PA2002 -001).
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh, Newport Beach
4
The property is located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Park
Avenue and Apolena Avenue on Balboa Island.
Easterly 40 feet of Lot 1 & 2, Block 7, Section 2
GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential
ZONING
DISTRICT: R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family residential)
Introduction and Background
Mr. and Mrs. Brumbaugh have submitted a Variance and Modification Permit request associated
with the redevelopment of their residential property at 201 Apolena Avenue on Balboa Island.
The applicant plans to demolish the existing residence and construct a new 2,583 square foot
residence. As stated above, the project exceeds the maximum floor area limit (VA2002 -001) and
the proposed residence does not conform to the applicable setbacks (MD2002 -032).
I
{
Variance No. 2002 -001 & Modification Permit No. 2002 -032
(PA2002 -001 -)
201 Apolena Avenue
Current
Development:
Single - family residential use
To the north:
Residential use abutting the site
226
Residential uses across A olena Avenue
W
`f'
226
224
To the west:
W
.
dg
LU
27
225
z<
724
n2
337
226
mi
220
218
22Y_
721
n2
728
218
223
-22'1"-
227
224
Tn
710
218
22
122
222
2 I
71L
221
0
18
216
n0
196
217
2t
T1a
21
217
21
ITT-
I
219
217
218
2
216
218
210
1
314
214
1
215
214
1
'214
215
21918
x�
L(1
214
14
21
213
2
7
J
213
212
2/0
12
213
212
210
211
210
-fl 1 "
1
310
20
d
2re
Q
318
m
-29-'
m8
128
124
1
1
118
118
114
11
n6
SOS
207
a
��
220075771
ma
265.
_
m4
m2
127
204.
70 0
MCI
12 1� la RS aS
1 4 125
. .
Subject Property
116 117 118
114 1 111
11 112 i13 i12
1 110
107 108 709 ;08
28:t
m0
128
201
80f 201
�.
12
126
127
2
12
12T
1
1=
124
124
in
1
12
11
124
In
2
122
,yl •
"
11
1ZD
118
-T—
121
120
120
21
118
119
11
1 3
11
118
118
110
11
11
1
116
11
118
]tT
11
113
111
11
t13
114
114
114
112
II
112
11
11
18f
110
111
110
10A
108
I07
IC9
107
108
105
BAY FRONT SOUTH
r� NEWPORT
BAY
N
0 200 400 Feet VICINITY MAP WE
s
Variance No. 2002 -001 & Modification Permit No. 2002 -032
(PA2002 -001 -)
201 Apolena Avenue
Current
Development:
Single - family residential use
To the north:
Residential use abutting the site
To the east:
Residential uses across A olena Avenue
To the south:
Residential uses across Park Avenue
To the west:
Residential use abutting the project site
Mr. &.Mrs..B2umbaugh (PA2002 -001) .. .
March 21, 2002
Page 2 of 10
Site Overview
The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Avenue and Apolena
Avenue. The site abuts residences to the north and west and it does not have alley access. The
property is surrounded by residential uses across both streets.
The property is 2,400 square feet in area (40' x 60'), which is comprised of the easterly portion
of Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of Block 7, Section 2. The site is developed with an existing, single -story
residence, which the applicant has indicated is approximately 1000 square feet in size. The
existing residence was built across parts of two separate lots as noted above and County Assessor
records indicate the structure was built in 1924.
The particular site is unique in the neighborhood because it is situated on the front one -half of
two lots that were part of the original subdivision and subsequently divided in half. The rear half
of these lots were reconfigured to front on Park Avenue while the front half of these lots (along
both Apolena and Park Avenues) is what constitutes the Brumbaugh's property.
Proiect Overview
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence, merge the separate lot sections,
and construct a new three -story, single - family residence. The proposed residence has three
bedrooms (all on the second level), two- and -a -half bathrooms, an enclosed two -car garage, and a
third level roof deck that connects to a loft area. The new residence is proposed at 2,583 gross
square feet, with vehicular access from Park Avenue. The plans show the proposed curb cut for
the garage located on Park Avenue as far away from the intersection as possible.
Below is a table that outlines some of the existing characteristics and relevant information about
the project:
Project Development Characteristics Table
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002
-Page 3 of 10
REQUIRED or
ALLOWED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Gross Land Area
5,000 sq. ft.
2,400 sq. ft.
2,400 sq. ft.
Buildable Area
Varies
1,080 sq. ft.
1,080 sq. ft.
Floor Area Limit
1.5 x Buildable Area:
+ 200 sq. ft. for an
970 sq. ft. (built)
2,164.15 sq. ft. proposed
enclosed garage =
418.60 sq. ft. garage
1,625 sq. ft.
2,582.75 sq. ft. total
Building Height:
24 feet to the
Average roof
Pitched roof with ridge and
midpoint of a
height of 14
hip elements with a
sloping roof with
feet.
maximum height of 29 feet
the ridge not to
(midpoint of the roof is 24
exceed 29 feet
feet) and a third -story roof
deck that measures 24 feet
in height
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002
-Page 3 of 10
Analysis
General Plan, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Code
The General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan both designate the property as Two -
Family Residential. This designation permits two units per lot. The Brumbaugh's application to
replace an existing residence with one unit is consistent with this designation.
The Local Coastal Program's Land Use Plan addresses Balboa Island in that the plan allows the
continuance of Two - Family Residential uses. Again, the Brumbaugh's request is consistent with
this plan as it remains a single - family dwelling (not proposed to become a duplex) and would not
result in the creation of more lots than that allowed by the original subdivision.
The Zoning Code designates the property as R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family Residential). The
total gross floor area for all buildings is limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 times the
buildable area (fat area minus the. setbacks). plus 200 square feet for an enclosed garage. As
noted, the applicant seeks to deviate from the Floor Area Limit and setbacks. Other than the
requested Variance and Modifications, the proposal conforms to all other applicable development
standards within the R -1.5 District.
Yard Identification
The identification of the yards plays a critical role in determining the buildable area of the site
and structure location. The District Map covering the property imposes a setback of 10 feet along
Apolena Avenue. Normally, this yard depiction of the Districting Map would establish the
required front yard setback. However; the lot 'is a comer lot and by definition, the front yard
adjoins the shorter property line. The definition of a comer lot states: "The front yard of a comer
lot shall adjoin the shortest street property line, provided that where street property lines are
substantially the same length, the Planning Director shall determine the location of the front
yard." The definition clearly implies that there is never two front yards for a corner lot. The Park
Avenue property line is 40 feet in length and the Apolena Avenue lot line is 60 feet in length,
therefore Park Avenue is the front yard.
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002 \D
Page 4 of 10
REQUIRED or
ALLOWED
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Setbacks for main structure:
20 ft.
7 ft.
Front: (Park Avenue)
Sides: (Apolena)
10 ft.
0 -5.6 ft.
3 ft., 2 in.
(West)
3 ft.
6 ft.
3 ft.
Rear: (North)
10 ft.
4 ft.
3 ft.
Parking provided:.
1 enclosed and
No enclosed
2 enclosed garage spaces
I covered space
garage spaces
Analysis
General Plan, Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Code
The General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan both designate the property as Two -
Family Residential. This designation permits two units per lot. The Brumbaugh's application to
replace an existing residence with one unit is consistent with this designation.
The Local Coastal Program's Land Use Plan addresses Balboa Island in that the plan allows the
continuance of Two - Family Residential uses. Again, the Brumbaugh's request is consistent with
this plan as it remains a single - family dwelling (not proposed to become a duplex) and would not
result in the creation of more lots than that allowed by the original subdivision.
The Zoning Code designates the property as R -1.5 (Restricted Two - Family Residential). The
total gross floor area for all buildings is limited to a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 times the
buildable area (fat area minus the. setbacks). plus 200 square feet for an enclosed garage. As
noted, the applicant seeks to deviate from the Floor Area Limit and setbacks. Other than the
requested Variance and Modifications, the proposal conforms to all other applicable development
standards within the R -1.5 District.
Yard Identification
The identification of the yards plays a critical role in determining the buildable area of the site
and structure location. The District Map covering the property imposes a setback of 10 feet along
Apolena Avenue. Normally, this yard depiction of the Districting Map would establish the
required front yard setback. However; the lot 'is a comer lot and by definition, the front yard
adjoins the shorter property line. The definition of a comer lot states: "The front yard of a comer
lot shall adjoin the shortest street property line, provided that where street property lines are
substantially the same length, the Planning Director shall determine the location of the front
yard." The definition clearly implies that there is never two front yards for a corner lot. The Park
Avenue property line is 40 feet in length and the Apolena Avenue lot line is 60 feet in length,
therefore Park Avenue is the front yard.
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002 \D
Page 4 of 10
The 10 -foot setback depicted on the Districting Map for Apolena Avenue is a street side yard.
Staff used this 10 -foot setback for the purposes of establishing structure location as the original
intent of the setbacks depicted on the Districting Map was to maintain the existing line of
development (structure placement). Further, staff used the 3 -foot default side yard setback, as
opposed to the 10 -foot setback from the Districting Map, for the purposes of determining the
buildable area as the larger setback is intended to regulate structure location. This procedure is
based upon specific direction from the Planning Commission after consideration of similar cases.
Floor Area Limit
The plans submitted for the Brumbaugh application propose a three- story, single - family
residence. The 2,583 gross square feet (sq. ft.) proposed is separated into three levels as follows:
I' Floor: 983.65 sq. ft. livable space +
418.60 sq. ft. garage
2nd Floor: 1,049.00 sq. ft. livable space
3" Floor: 131.50 sq ft livable space and a 310.00 sq. ft. balcony /deck area
Gross Floor Area: 2,582.75 sq. ft. (2,164.15 sq. ft. total livable space + 418.60 sq. ft. garage)
The table below compares the site and area information for the applicant's request.
Development
Subject Lot
Typical Lot in
Proposed
Standards
the Tract
Setbacks: Front:
20 ft.
10 ft.
5 ft.
Sides:
3 ft. &
3 ft.
3 ft. &
10 ft.
3 ft. 2 inches
Rear:
10 ft.
5 ft.
3 ft.
Gross Land Area:
40 ft. x 60 ft. =
30 ft. x 85 ft. =
No change
2,400 sq. ft.
2,550 sq. ft.
Buildable Area:
34 ft. x 30 ft. -
(70 sq. ft.') =
24 ft. x 70 ft. =
950 sq. ft.
1,680 sq. ft.
No change
Gross Floor Area:
(Buildable Area x 1.5
1,425 sq. ft. +
2,520 sq. ft. +
+200 sq. ft. for
200 sq. ft. =
200 sq. ft. =
enclosed garage)
1,625 sq. ft.
2,720 sq. ft.
2,582.75 sq. ft.
Setback Area:
1,450 sq. ft.
870s a. ft.
860 sq. ft.
Floor Area to Land
Area Ratio:
0.677
1.066
1.076
' Deduction for reversed frontage setback
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002 11
Page 5 of 10 1
Reasonable Setbacks
The Planning Commission has also used the reasonable setback method to determine a possible
floor area for similar cases. For this analysis, staff used the following setbacks:
.Front: 10 feet on Park Avenue
Sides: 3 feet
Rear: 5 feet
Using these setbacks, the residence could be 2,495 sq. ft. [(34' x 45'x 1.5) + 200 sq. ft.], which
results in a floor area to land area ratio of 1.039: The applicanfs. request exceeds this possible
floor area limit by 88 square feet (2,583 sq. ft. -2,495 sq. ft. = 88 sq. ft.).
Variance Findings
The Zoning Code requires the approving authority make certain findings for Variances. These
findings are listed and discussed below: „
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 lot location and size are uncommon and the strict application of the setback
standards reduces the buildable area disproportionately compared to other lots
under identical zoning in the area. More of the subject lot is devoted to setback
areas than a typical lot in the area. with the strict application of the setback
standards. The subject property is afforded a 0.677 floor area to lot area ratio and
a typical lot on Balboa Island with a 10 -foot front yard setback is permitted a
1.066 floor area to lot area ratio.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
Without the granting of the increased area, a residence located on the property
would be limited to 1,625 square feet in area. This amount of area is a substantial
property right, however it is over 1,000 square feet below what other properties in
the area could be developed with. Granting the Variance would provide a similar
property right.enjoyed by others in the immediate area under the identical zoning
classification.
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 increase in floor area limit is also proportionately consistent with the area
permitted for other lots in the area, supporting the finding that it is not.a grant of
special privilege. The abutting parcel to the west that also fronts Park Avenue was
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002 \ a
Page 6 of 10
granted a similar Variance in 1998 to exceed the buildable area imposed on the
lot.
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 property is designated for two 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.
Granting the request for the increased floor area limit will not be detrimental to
the surrounding neighborhood as it is consistent with the size and intensity of
other, single - family and two family residential properties in the area.
Based upon the discussion of the four Variance findings, staff believes that the facts are present
to approve a floor area Variance for this property. However, there remains the determination of
the appropriate amount of floor area to grant. The two methods of analysis presented in this
report both lead to a modest reduction in the project. If the floor area to land area analysis were
used, a reduction of 24.35 sq. ft. would result. The reasonable setback analysis suggests a
reduction of 88 sq. ft.
Setbacks
To achieve the proposed building areas mentioned above, the applicant is proposing three
different setback encroachments: 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard setback; 7 feet into
the 10 -foot rear yard setback; and 6 feet, 10 inches into the setback along Apolena Avenue. In order
to grant relief to an applicant through a modification perniit, the 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."
Front
The applicant proposes a setback of 5 feet from Park Avenue to remain consistent with the
abutting residential property to the west (1006 Park Avenue). Maintaining consistent setbacks
supports the purpose of the Zoning Code to promote orderly development. The Traffic Engineer
believes that the 5 -foot setback is acceptable for the garage and does not anticipate any parking
issues within the setback as it fronts Park Avenue, which is fairly well traveled by vehicles and
pedestrians. Additionally, the setback provides adequate sight distance for vehicular access
provided abutting fences are kept to 36 inches in height The garage is the only portion of the
building that is 5 feet from Park Avenue, and is 21'-4" wide. Other portions of the building are
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002 i3
Page 7 of 10
setback an additional 11 feet. The second level above the garage, with the exception of a bay
window is setback an additional 2 feet 4 inches. This vertical articulation of the encroaching
elements of the structure as well as the additional setback area near the corner helps in mitigating
the mass of the structure from Park Avenue. Staff believes that the proposed encroachments are
acceptable.
Rear
A setback encroachment of-7 feet is proposed into the 10- foot :rear yard setback where the
property abuts the neighboring residence. to the north. The encroachment is proposed to match
the side yard setback relationships for typical residential property in the same block. The 3 -foot
setback is also consistern with the rear yard setback that was approved for 1006 Park Avenue in
1998 (Variance No. 1225). If the subject property was not reoriented to Park Avenue, this
setback would be a side yard of 3 feet and a building would be permitted to be located in the
position proposed by the applicant. The two story encroachment is 27 feet wide and a portion of
the second level has an open balcony. This balcony limits the mass the second level, but it
introduces a privacy issue. Such a balcony is permissible if the yard were designated as a
sideyard. The third level loft area and roof deck are not oriented toward the neighbor to the north
and are not located in the rear yard setback.
The modification of the setback also includes the chimney that encroaches an additional foot into
the proposed 3 -foot rear yard setback. Zoning Code `Section No. 20.60.030 - Extension Into
Yards,' states that a chimney may encroach up to 2 feet into an established rear yard setback of
10 feet provided that the chimney is not less than 5 feet from any side yard setback line. A strict
reading of this section would not permit the chimney encroachment. However, the Zoning Code
permits a chimney to encroach within a side yard provided that there remains 2 feet to the
property line. This separation permits passage for emergency personnel. If the yard functions as a
sideyard, the suggested chimney encroachment should not prove detrimental as emergency
access is afforded and the chimney is narrow. The remaining distance between the proposed
project and the neighbor will be 6 feet. This distance is consistent with sideyard to sideyard
relationships permitted by the Zoning Code and should not prove a detriment.
Side
The established setback on Apolena is 10 feet as dictated by the District Map. The encroachment
of 6 feet 10 inches into the street side setback is approximately 24 feet of the 60 -foot lot width
along Apolena Avenue. The encroachment begins 20 feet south of the abutting lot on Apolena in
order to maintain the setback along the street in accordance with the sideyard setback
requirements for reverse corner lots. Reverse comer' lots are required to match the abutting
property's front yard setback, which in this case is 10 feet, for the first 20 feet of property. The
proposed design adheres to the additional setback required of reverse comer lots. The proposed
encroachment is also setback from the comer 16 feet. This open area allows the mass of the
proposed residence to be setback from the comer. This area will be used as a patio for the
occupants. The extent of the proposed encroachments is 40% of the Apolena frontage on the first
level. On the second level, portion of the residence that encroaches within the setback area is
smaller, articulated and further setback between 3 to 7 feet than the lower level. The Planning
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002 �1(
Page 8 of 10
Commission must determine the importance of maintaining a consistent setback along Apolena,
which is the intent of the 10 -foot setback depiction on the Districting Map. Staff believes that the
size and bulk of the encroachments along Apolena are acceptable as they are limited and
designed with articulation in both a vertical and horizontal sense.
In summary, staff believes that two of the proposed encroachments, (front and rear yard), can be
found acceptable for the reasons discussed as well as consistent with the intent of the
development regulations of the Zoning Code. Granting the front and rear yard setback
encroachments proposed would maintain consistency with abutting property to the west (1006
Park Avenue) and should not be detrimental to either the surrounding properties or the general
community. However, the proposed encroachment within the 10 -foot setback from Apolena is of
concern as the addition will not conform to the predominate line of development of the block.
This portion of the Modification request may result in a situation that is detrimental to the area or
inconsistent with the legislative intent of the code.
Environmental Review
The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Qaality Act und^r Class 2. (Replacement or
Reconstriaction). The project is proposed for property where ah necessary public services are
available. Furthermore, the property site is located in an urbanized area which is not
environmentally sensitive.
Recommendation
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve Variance No. 2002 -001 as designed, the
suggested findings and conditions of approval have been included in the attached resolution
(Exhibit No. 1).'! To date, staff has received only one comment with regard to the applicant's
request. Ms. Marion C. Grant submitted a letter on both her and her husband's behalf that is
opposed to the reduced setbacks for reasons such as increased noise and reduced landscaping
(Exhibit No. 3). Staff believes that the Variance is supportable, but the modification to the required
10 -foot setback along Apolena Avenue may be contrary to the legislative intent of the code. By
encroaching further towards Apolena, the project would become inconsistent with other residences
along the same street and may hinder neighboring views. Should the Commission find that the
encroachments within the setbacks are not acceptable, staff recommends that the item be continued
to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project to conform to the desires of the
Commission. If the Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for the Variance request,
staff suggests that the Commission either direct the applicant to reduce the floor area to an
acceptable level or deny the application. Findings for denial have been prepared and are attached as
Exhibit No. 4.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
,�L�.�C.l�l 10�1ae9
Prepared by:
TODD M. WEBER
Associate Planner l
11
Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh (PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002
Page 9 of 10
Exhibits % :,
1. Resolution No. _, including findings and conditions of approval and proposed plans
2. Architect's Justification Letter
3. Letter from Ms. Marion C. Grant in opposition to the Brumbaugh request.
4. Findings. for. denial . _....
5. Plans
FAUSERS\PLN\Shared \PA's\PAs- 2002 \PA2002- 001\VA2002 -001 perpt.doc
Mr. &.Mrs. Bnanbaugh.(PA2002 -001)
March 21, 2002 1lQ
Page 10 of 10 l
r.
Exhibit No. l
Draft Resolution for project approval
I1
,; _ > !' t
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY O)!
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2002 -001 AND
MODIFICATION NO. 2002 -032 (PA2002 -001) FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 201 APOLENA AVENUE
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve, and order as
follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh, with
respect to property located at 201 Apolena Avenue (PA2002 -001) and legally described as the
easterly 40 feet of Lot Nos. 1 & 2, Block 7, Section 2 of the Balboa Isle Tract, requesting
approval of a variance to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit applicable to Balboa Island (VA2002-
001). The application also includes a request for three separate setback encroachments as
follows: an encroachment of 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard setback; 7 feet into the 10-
foot rear yard setback; and 6 feet, 10 inches into the setback along Apolena Avenue (MD2002 -032).
Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on November 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 meeting 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:
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 lot location and size are uncommon and the strict application of the setback
standards reduces the buildable area disproportionately compared to other lots
under identical zoning in the area. More of tfie subject lot is devoted to setback
areas than a typical lot in the area with the strict application of the setback
standards. The subject property is afforded a 0.677 floor area to lot area ratio and
a typical lot on Balboa Island with a 10 -foot front yard setback is permitted a
1.076 floor area to lot area ratio.
Ja
b) That. the granting .of the. application. is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
Without the granting of the increased area, a residence located on the property
'would be limited to 1,625 square feet in area. This amount of area is
approximately 1,000 square feet below what other properties in the area could be
developed with. Granting the variance provides a similar property right enjoyed
by others in the immediate area under the identical zoning classification.
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.
The increase in floor area limit is proportionately consistent with the area
permitted for other lots in the area. The. abutting parcel to_the west that also fronts
Park Avenue was granted a similar variance in 1998 to exceed the buildable area
imposed on the lot.
d) 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 property is designated for two - family residential use, which is consistent with
what is planned for the area. No additional traffic, parking or demand for other
services should result from project implementation. Granting the request for the
increased floor area limit will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood
as it is consistent with the size and intensity of other, single- family and two
family residential properties in the area.
e) 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.
A front yard setback distance of 5 feet is proposed.to remain consistent with the
abutting residential property to the west (1006 Park Avenue). A setback
encroachment of 7 feet is proposed into the 10 -foot rear yard setback along the
northern property line.. A setback encroachment of 6 feet 10 inches is proposed .
into the established street side setback on Apolena of 10 feet. The proposed
design adheres to the additional setback required of.reverse corner lots. The
I
E) yr)
modification of the setback includes the chimney that encroaches an additional
foot into the proposed 3 -foot rear yard setback. The minimum distance between
buildings on separate lots 6 feet. The extent of the proposed encroachments is
40% of the Apolena frontage on the first level. On the second level, portion of the
residence that encroaches within the setback area is smaller, articulated and
further setback_ between 3 to 7 feet than the lower level. The third level loft area
and roof deck are not located oriented toward the neighbor to the north and are
not located in the rear yard setback. The proposed encroachments do not affect the
views from nearby properties and the project complies with applicable height
limits. The proposed setbacks will not result in a situation that is detrimental to
the neighboring properties in the immediate area or the general community.
f) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the
proposed development.
g) That public improvements may be required of the developer pursuant to Section
20.91.040 of the Municipal Code.
h) The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt under
Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves an amendment to Variance No. 2002 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -032,
subject to the coiiditions set forth in Attachment "A."
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 2155 DAY OF MARCH, 2002.'
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Al
BY:—
Earl McDaniel, Secretary
Attachment "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Variance No. 2002 -001 & Modification Permit No. 2002 -032
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans, roof plans and elevations and dated February 21, 2002 except as revised by other
conditions of approval.
2. The Variance No. 2002 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -032 shall expire unless
exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 if
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
3. A Certificate of Compliance, Lot Line Adjustment, or Lot Merger shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of any demolition permit for the existing residence.
4. The project shall comply with the City's most recently adopted version of the Uniform
Building Code (U.B.C.). Due to the location of the project site, development of the project
will require liquefaction mitigation and compliance with flood plain requirements.
5. All improvements within the public right -of -way shall be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit.
6. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and
existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project,
unless Aerwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works
Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an
encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department.
An easement must be obtained from the owners of the property identified as 1006 Park
Avenue for a sewer lateral to serve the project. A sewer lateral and sewer lateral cleanout
must be installed in the alley between Coral Avenue and Apolena Avenue to serve 201
Apolena Avenue.
8. A 10 -foot radius corer cutoff at the comer of Apolena Avenue and Park Avenue shall be
dedicated to the public.
9. 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.
10. 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.
FAUSERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2002\PA2002-001\VA2002-001 paesolution.doc
a5
1 �Y
Exhibit No. 2
Justification letter from the project architect
A5
`'i
IAN J.N. HARRISON - ARCHITECT
Newport Beach, California 949/645 -1 205
James W. Campbell, Senior Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Re: Variance Application
Brumbaugh Residence
201 Apolena Avenue, Balboa Island
Project Description and Justification
The Owner would like to demo the existing home and construct a new
single - family dwelling and two -car garage similar to other new homes on
Balboa Island.
After discussing the project with both Marina Marrelli and Jay Garcia of
the kanning Department it was determined that because there was no
alley access and that the narrow portion of the lot faced Park Avenue
there would be required a 20 foot front yard setback and a 10 foot rear
yard setback, therefore, the buildable area of the lot would be
substantially 'reduce from a standard lot. We are therefore, asking for a
variance to the required setbacks, as shown on the submitted plans, to
allow a home be built, which is in substantial c_ onformance to other homes
in the neighborhood.
The City Council has already reviewed and approved the proposed
project, because the driveway /curb cut had to have their approval to be
relocated to Park Avenue.
What exceptional circumstances apply to the property?
The size of the lot (40'x60'), with no alley access.
Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights?
Applying the default setbacks to this property, would allow only 1,425 sf of
buildable area. This amounts to 68% of the lot area. On a typical Balboa
Island lot the allowable building area is from 107% to 110 ° /9 of the lot area.
I
fa
Why will proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood?
Previous variances, the Planning Commission has approved, were
allowed greater gross floor area when it was shown the proposed project
`• maintained the same ratio of floor area to land area as other typical
residential lots in the neighborhood... The.typical buildable area for lots on
Balboa Island varies from 2,720 SF to 3,080 SF, this equates to a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 1.07 to 1.21.
The proposed requested building area of 2,600 square feet, with 1.08
FAR, substantially conforms to currently allowed areas on the Island. The
requested modifications to the required setbacks are in conformance with
the typical lots on Balboa Island.
Many of the residents of the Island are exposed to this lot as they travel along
Park Avenue. It is hoped, with the proposed improvements, this corner will be
something everyone can enjoy.
Thank you for your consideration.
1
}
Exhibit No. 3
Letter from Ms. Marion C. Grant dated March 12, 2002
N
MAR -12 -2002 TUE 03:18 PM A IN BIO MED.LAB FAX NO. 5122513939
Marion C. Grant
119 Apolena Ave.
Balboa Island, CA 92662
March 12, 2002
Todd Weber
Planning Department
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92858 -8915
Dear Mr. Weber:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY C?F NFWOr)OT rnFAGH
AM MAR 12 2002 PM
7181911011111^ki1G15141816
`k
This letter is In response to the Public Notice for Variance VA2002 -001. My
husband and I own our home at 119 Apolena and we want to register our strong
opposition for the variance request at 201 Apolena Ave, Balboa Island.
The decrease of front, side and back set backs only increases noise, fire hazard
congestion , and disturbs air circulation.
w'
The allowance has already been expanded. The elimination of set backs
decreases landscaping and destroys the charming cottage essence of Balboa
Island.
My husband and I are unable to attend the public hearing scheduled for March
21, 2002 because we will be out of state.
Sincerely,
//�� C' dt-a�
Marion C. Grant
P. 02
51
C R)
Exhibit No. 4
Findings for denial
33
Findings for Denial
Variance No. 2002 -001 & Modification No. 2002 -032
The property is afforded a substantial property right without the approval of a variance
to the floor area limit, and approval of the requested variance is the granting of special
privilege. The Zoning Code presently permits a building that can be 1,625 square feet in
area. The property owner is not deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property as a
result on the strict application of the Zoning Code.
2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building
will, 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 modifications are inconsistent with the legislative intent of this code for
the following reasons:
a. The proximity and size of the proposed three level building within the
required street side setback conflicts with the established setbacks noted on
the District Maps within the Zoning Code.
b. The reduced street side setback does not conform to the front yard setbacks of
10 feet required of other structures along Apolena Avenue.
c. Tjme reduced street yard setback would place a three story building 8' -2" away
666 Apolena Avenue while compliance with the setback is necessary to
maintain consistent building massing along the roadway.
d. The proposed building would be sited in locations where it would not
otherwise be located which will have a negative impacts to views from
adjoining properties.
�)5
�11
®R �
Exhibit No. 5
Proposed plans
31
xc
2�
■
1.R'�CI
i
I HIM,
14!
PI
i>tluE;iL'i�
s' d�lllil�l
�11
F-77
071
'111J
lit
li�li 11
r
1111
i'
l,-- of
1111i1'If
(ll.`+'1�1111
14111 Ir
9h
1�Igk
2 f. 10171
.iq;
IIi
1 A.
II
1,ill
1
t ,
IF 41sa
- '11111
f1
�.
c,'lll
+l,ll 1141
1111: i5a
,7I
,15-
=�
LIT,
1�141i11i�e
-11, .
l i I t'i
11, 1 11
1t,
111
' I
1
;a 1 W 1
yt r
•• —
f
F
Ill
Ipp
Il�alpa
I
Ili
,�
11 e,_
�41I III �I�III
All
1'I!
t -.3
A
it ill
hi I,Ilii��
Pip wallil
xc
2�
1$#
i
Mol
'G4
.....
8
3
�Y•.nww.� aaaaaaa�
4�i.
osxrssia;.......
9326 !°�%110'P°91°atl3B.
G
xmana® -
OWN
axma3saa [to�vavtnxa'
NV .1 9NIOV�i l ! 101d
1$#
i
Mol
Is
�.w
aPecaex a4Pd #:
$'n $a la
01 wl&�a iy N
S
�g
94
Its
xg eea ea
�.�'4 �e
H111 1141 1 gg I
Si -
�
? a.p •� p �3 4
q p a
y q 9
w {$ 4 fgE fill
r 3 i
uj
All
'G4
8
3
0
Is
�.w
aPecaex a4Pd #:
$'n $a la
01 wl&�a iy N
S
�g
94
Its
xg eea ea
�.�'4 �e
H111 1141 1 gg I
Si -
�
? a.p •� p �3 4
q p a
y q 9
w {$ 4 fgE fill
r 3 i
uj
All
r""�W
ln.W..�..�
N09tlaVN'N'INVI®
' .
'
3
I�
IIILI
NIA
W�I�li4
..........................................
xsvxs n�wm!n�'rvwnl wwna
. wuany m•MIy IOI
' '3JNaQIS]a IIOOtlFIWIla9...
8
Ei
...............................
.
..
tl
Q x
,
f
G
�
M
�'
'.
_ ..........
III:
ft; {�•
............................... ..
--v- pdv lot''
i99
..
......... 9�N.941S4 IIDf1tlflWllNfl'
t
.
2
LPa
�.n. m.u�iw
NOSIMaYH'NINVI®
X111:
�kl�!
p IlJL'6
WEE-M OIE
i99 6 My !I aY^reisl ro91e11
'3JNHOISi, lw`JeOV9WOaH "'-
C
..
_-
5�
........................... .....
� �
�
s
F
a3
Exhibit No. B
Additional Letter from the Project Architect
A5
IAN J.N. HARRISON - AR.CHI.TECT
March 18, 2002
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Todd M. Webber, Associate Planner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Re: Variance Application (2002 -001)
Brumbaugh Residence.
201 Apolena Avenue, Balboa Island
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NF?vPnPT CEAC:H
AM MAR 19 2002 PM
718,911 Oil 1112111213141516
Please allow me to address some of the issues included and excluded in the Staff Report for the
above referenced project.
The Staff Report refers to the side property line set back along Apolena Avenue as being 10 feet,
which is incorrect. The Zoning Code section 20.10.030 specifically refers to this type of lot as a
"Reversed Corner Lot ", whereby the prevailing set back along the side street (Apolena Avenue),
which is 10 feet, must be maintained for 20 feet into the comer lot and then can be 3 feet for the
remainder of the side. The proposed dwelling is designed with this requirement in mind. Please
refer to the enclosed copy of the page from the Zoning Code.
New driveways on Balboa Island must have City Council Approval. In their September 25, 2001
meeting the City Council reviewed the project and accepted the proposed driveway relocation
from Apolena Avenue to Park Avenue.
The size of the proposed home is in substantial conformity with the building- area -to -site ratio as
other homes in the area. After reviewing many Variances granted in the past, our request is well
within what has be accepted for other uniquely shaped lots on Balboa Island: Variance #1219 was
at 1.22, Variance #1175 was at 1.19; Variance #1136 was at 1.28, Variance #1110 was at 1.23...
Every effort has been made to reduce the proposed new dwelling's impact in the neighborhood.
The corner has been left open and the second floor steps back to allow for good visibility and light.
We trust you will believe our sincere effort to design a new home that will blend into the
neighborhood and grant the variance.
Sincer
�`-
Ian .N. Ha ison, Architect
L0
1936 TERESITA LANE - NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 - 949/645 -1208
K'b
6?_�
Exhibit No. C
Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Baker
MAR -21 -2002 05:28 AM P•02
t REC((,,,5 D BY
PLANNING
TActN H
CITY nr-
AM • -
MAR 2 0 2002 PM
Ao ftutA GZ 7 0INilli12111213141518
a* Of ,lea CA
f' /cr nrKn9 C'on�n►�'ss ;vrt YlA FAX
1 ,t3t�/rnbaug{� vahr'�cr�c�i VA:200a -oa t
/klmer.,A oz
WG wou /c� �'�ke fe e1(,pr�s d:2ar c�rsagrce�,es�t
r� ,yc fz�c4r4e. 1 rer6 � fifrr al�.
7 i 1 r?woef is tv wol a G rs� /a"Ilce
s9"Ore o r��i f� a * kv/ cu'40&" tea(
Q/itOT�i
Sdtr, ,COf: 74 ��OG1 j�ia'4V�tdy] D� �S
A441 a/ar L fu r
15AQ66 W nod 194 aatlor /* Azwl
vas,^; o/
y� Li J6 LoLlm
Cord ��}uZ; ,aboa '"Wgix.oi 9.z6re Z
5�
Ja
Exhibit No. D
Letter from Ms. Farason
_..... VI I V I v.
PUBLIC NOTICE
MAR 1 8 2002
Brumbaugh Variance AM PM
VA2002 -001 71819110 II i I I 1114, 314,816
(PA2002 -001)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public
hearing on the application of Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh for Variance VA2002 -001 on property located al 201 Apolena
Avenue on Balboa Island. am A
` J.
Request for a Variance to exceed the established floor area limit and a Modification Permit to encroach 15 feet
into the required 20 -foot front yard setback; 7 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback: and 6 feet, 10 inches into
the 10 -foot setback along Atwlens Avenue,. for a new single -fatnily dwelling unit to be reconstructed at 201
Apolena Avenue 010 f 7 _ NK` /D to -Iler 700 7!
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 21st day of March, 2002, at
the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you
challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or -in- written - correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For information call (949) 644 -3200.
3plcl
Earl 410aniel, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. a --- A4'61 . vx
d i
A�
.. .:.� ;� „a,cl from a filing fee collected from site app tit:ant.
FILE COPY 3 -
Janis Farason
122 Amethyst Ave.
Balboa island, CA 92662
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002
Mortazavi Triplex (PA2001
1324 W. Balboa Boulevard
(PA2001 -193)
Request for an bddifion and alteration of on existing nonconforming triplex. The
existing triplex is nonconforming due to the fact that it is located in the R -2 District
where two dwelling units are the maximum allowed. The triplex Is also
nonconforming in that the property provides only three parking spaces where the
Zoning Ordniance requires a minimum of six spaces (2 per unit).
Ms. Wood reported that this item Is to be`continued, at the applicant's request, to
May 9, 2002.
a�4
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to May 9, 2002
as requested by the applicant.
Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanion, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selichy
Noes: None `•�
Excused: Kiser
Item 5
PA2001 -193
Continued to
05/09/2002
SUBJECT: Brumbaugh Residence Item 6
201 Apolena Avenue FILE PA2002 -001
(PA2002 -001)
Request for a vdriance to exceed the established floor area limit and a Variance was
Modification Permit to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 -,foot front yard setback: approved,
7 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback: and 6 feet, 10 inches Into the setback Modification was
along Apolena Avenue, for a new single- family dwelling. referred to
Committee
Chairperson Tucker noted this involves two separate matters, one is a request for a
variance to exceed the established floor area limit and the second is a modification
permit to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard setback which is on
Park Avenue, almost 7' into the Apolena setback and into the north and west
setbacks as well.
Todd Weber noted the additional letters that came in from the public, copies of
which were either faxed or left on the dais for you tonight.
Chairperson Tucker then explained that there are two actions, one to exceed the
floor area limit on the property that is determined by taking the lot boundaries and
subtracting out the setbacks and multiplying that by 1.5 plus 200 square feet. Where
all the lots in the neighborhood run east to west you mathmatically can end up with
quite a variation in the total buildable area of a lot that runs north to south. The
other major issue is a modification to determine how much of an encroachment
into the Apolena Avenue setback is appropriate.
10 �
Exhibit No. 2
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002
Mr. Edmonston clarified assertions made by the architect in his letter referencing
that the City Council reviewed this project last year and in one case indicates that
they approved it. All that was reviewed by the City Council was the relocation of
the driveway. The current driveway is on Apolena Avenue and the City Council
approved it to be relocated to Park Avenue. The Council did not look at any other
aspect of the project. Staff's concem during that time was parking. The relocation
of the driveway creates a parking space on Apolena Avenue and takes away a
parking Space on Park Avenue. There was no impact on parking; it was approved
by the Council with the understanding that Park. Avenue was the busier street. .
Chairperson Tucker then explained that the variance will be dealt with during the
first part of the discussion and then the modificaiton. He then asked the applicant
to discuss the findings for a variance that the Planning Commission must determine.
Public comment was opened.
Ian Harrison, project architect stated:
• The lot Is a very odd shape with no alley access.
• The lot had been divided in the 20's.
• The frontage on Park Avenue becomes a default 20 -foot setback.
• No Districting Map designation for that area.
• The applicant Is looldng for the same amount of buildable area as any other
lot on that street, percentage of lot area is about 1.07.
• This building will be similar to other buildings on Balboa Island.
• He has pulled back some massing on the project.
• Reverse.tgntage lot configuration came up because the side property has
to maintain a certain distance to the lots beyond that.
• Did not want to create a two story element next to Apolena Avenue, so I
pulled the building back.
• The existing building is built all the way to the sidewalk on Apolena Avenue,
so I didn't think I was asking for that much of a setback.
Chairperson Tucker noted:
• This lot is 2,400 square feet in size.
• The typical lot in the area is 2,550 square feet in size.
• The typical lot in the area would have 2720 square feet of gross floor area
allowed and this lot, which is almost the same size, would only have 1,625
square feet.
• The lot is not being treated in a similar fashion because of the Districting
Map.
Hall Sealey, 2833 Eastbluff Drive and owner of 1006 Park Avenue noted:
• Configuration of our cottage is similar to this project.
• Familiar with their setback difficulties.
• Stated his process with renovations he did . on his property and drew
comparisons to the present project proposals.
• He then stated that he is concerned with the massing of the proposed
Project.
11
NDIX
6%
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002
privacy issues.
INDEX
Philip Lugar, 1704 Park Avenue noted:
• When a buyer obtains a piece of property, they know full well what they are
allowed to do with that particular piece of property.
• By giving a variance, you will give them more than everybody else.
• The architect is good enough to do something creative.
• The findings for denial are sufficient.
• The property owner is afforded substantial property rights with his property
and should not be treated differently than everybody else. He was
forenoticed of the size of the property.
• Mansionization and massing concern is coming up with GPAC and EQAC
groups and if you do not deny it at least continue it so that those committees
can deal with it.
Art Katz, 1006 Park Avenue noted:
• Recognizes the applicant's need for a variance but states there is a bit of
overreaching going on.
• There will be an accident on Park Avenue due to all the garages and . this
application will add one more.
Commissioner Gifford noted that the location of the garage is fixed regardless of the
size of the structure.
Mr. Edmonton clarified that the Council in September approved a curb cut there,
that is not to say-it. is guaranteed to be there. It is still subject to the overall design of
the property. Typically these requests come in later. In this case, the architect
processed that request prior to coming to the Planning Commission so that he
would have some assurance that he could proceed with the design that included
that. But, I don't think It is necessarily a guaranteed thing because he has gone to
the Council. If the constraints established on the lot result in a more desirable
product for him in the end to move the driveway back, then he could do that.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his opposition to the application. This lot was
purchased with the full knowledge of what could be built there. The value reflected
that. There can be substantial property rights and use of it with an acceptable
buildable area, which is much smaller than this. This proposal is out of proportion as
to what should /could be built on this lot. I think there is a number for a variance that
could fit very nicely on this piece of property, but to fill the entire lot, remove the light
from surrounding properties and cut the view corridors off, I am against. A smaller
variance could meet the findings.
Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 6, noted the applicant could build a house
1,625 square feet and not come in for a variance. Staff is saying that using
reasonable setbacks, the applicant could build a house of 2495 square feet with a
variance. Is there some number between 1,625 and 2,495 that you would not be
opposed to?
12
5 °i
1
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002
Commissionnr McDaniel answered yes. The main concern is not retaining the 10
foot setback on Apolena. Something can be built.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that the setbacks that staff is using for reasonable
setbacks aren't necessarily the setbacks that the Commisison would approve under
the modification.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the' discusslon We are having is what is reasonable for
purposes of the floor area.. We might come up with a computation of floor area
that is reasonable and come up with setbacks for placement of the house such that
you can't fit that floor area within the setbacks that we vote on.
Commissioner Agajanian noted:
• This is a lot of uncommon size that does require: some sort of consideration.:
To compare this to a typical lot Is misleading. We need to make
comparisons of floor area ratios, they need to be made to similar corner
lots. Comparisons can not be made by saying we have a corner lot with
an unusual size and shape, but we want to develop the same floor area
ratio (FAR) as all the interior lots.
• By right, the floor area can be expanded by 50%. To me that constiti tes
the ability for the exercise of substantial property rights. I don't see the
need to build a much larger unit.
• I think this grants special privelege. When people purchase lots, they know
the price of the lot reflects the potential development of that lot. One can
not expect the free market to operate and then have a Commission such
as ours. try to modify those kinds of market considerations. This lot is
complete with a house on it and has the opportunity for expansion for
further use. I don't see anything wrong with the current standards.
• 1 would be opposed to this variance as I can not make the findings.
Commissioner Selich noted that we have these unusual lots and the way we
calculate our floor area ratio (FAR) using the setbacks overly penalizes them'. I can
support a variance for the FAR on the lot, but I can't support the amount of floor
area that the applicant has proposed. Referencing page 5 of the staff report, the
applicant is at a ratio of 1.076. 1 could support the 1.066, 1 think that brings it Into
parity with other lots on Balboa. Island. I could also support staff's determination of
1.039. From my standpoint anywhere within that range of 1.039 to 1.06, 1 would feel
comfortable supporting.
Chairperson Tucker noted his support of the reasonable setbacks standard that staff
has come up with, I would be willing to vote for that tonight.
Commissioner Kranzley noted he is struggling with the square footage issue. I would
like more information on the comparisons of similar lots.
Mr. Ian Harrison added that the typical comer lot (alley access, 30 x 85 foot lot) on
Balboa Island is treated like any interior tot the setback for the sides is 3 feet; the rear
is 5 feet and whatever the District Map says the front is, predominantly they are 10
13
INDEX
p
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002
feet. That Is the same on the corner lot as on the interior lots.
Commisisoner Gifford noted that she could make the findings for a variance and
the reasonable setback is an appropriate way to calculate it.
Mr. Alford noted the standard setbacks in the R -1.5 District the front is established by
the Districting Map and most of the lots are 40 feet or less in width so there are 3 foot
side yard setbacks. The rear setback is 10 feet.
Mr. Campbell added that with vehicular access to the alley, there will be a 5 foot
setback on the rear, which is the rationale for the reasonable setbacks in the staff
report. That is a typical rationale for all the lots shown on the Vicinity Map, the
regular lots on Balboa Island. The lots that are cut in half were done back in the 40's
or earlier and all have different setbacks. A lot of them are non - conforming and a
lot of them have variances.
Ms. Clauson added that the front yard setbacks are different all over the island,
",e : are , soc., ar._ 0, �-;ne 1 . From stre.:;:.,,cStre_::, ;,....,:cry.
Commisisoner McDaniel noted that they are reasonably consistent street by stfeet.
That is one of the reasons why this is a concern to me; the proposed setback on
Apoleno moves the whole line.
Commissioner Agajanian asked if the FAR on an undivided corner lot is the some
FAR as the interior lot? Staff answered it should be identical.
Chairperson Tucker asked for a straw vote on the variance using the reasonable
setbacks and 2495 square feet:
In support: Commissers Selich, Kranzley, Gifford and Tucker
Nor in support: Commissioners McDaniel, Agajanian
Chairperson Tucker noted that the majority of the Commission is willing to have 2495
square feet; the question now is where that footage may go.
Commissioner Gifford noted her concerns under the reasonable setback theory:
• That the five -foot rear setback is adjacent to the side of another house.
• The side yard setback issue particularly with the balcony that abuts the
other property to the left.
Mr. Ian Harrison added that if this were a conventional lot that went front to back
the alley to the street, the north (rear) property line would be a three -foot setback
and not be a five -foot setback. The fact that there are two separate homes on two
separate lots, there is quite a bit of open space between the front and back units. I
have put as much cutout on the building as possible. There is no sight line
impairment and I have made every effort to reduce the mass of the building to
make it conform to the context of a cottage. The driveway approval onto Park
14
INDEX
4I
i
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002
INDEX
Avenue was for less traffic to be backing out onto a more residential street than
Apolena Avenue, The setbacks I tried to adhere to were as if It was a reversed
frontage lot, which addresses where the setbacks should be. I have tried to set the
building back as far as possible. The most restrictive setback of 20 feet is on Park
Avenue and cuts.into.the site.-to penalize the site the most.
Craig Page, 200 Opal spoke as president of .the Balboa. Island. Improvement
Association noted his letter of April 2w and summarized:
• The original plot of 191.2 shows the two lots..configured in the some manner
as the other comer lots on Balboa Island on Park Avenue, Coral Avenue
and Sapphire Avenue.
• They were full depth lots from Apolena. Avenue to the alley.
• The existing cottage was built in 1924 across the front 1/2 of those lots.
• Another home recently re -built was put on the rear W of those lots.
• The area of those standard lots was quartered with the applicant's house
built on the front two quarters of the lot.
• Most building envelopes are pre - determined by setbacks required by the
Zoning regulations.
• . The applicant wants to achieve the largest building envelope to allow the
largest home to be built on the lot. ..
• The lot was not designed as a reverse corner lot nor intended to be a
reverse comer lot.
• Balboa Island has small lots and small streets that are incompatible with
reverse comer lots.
• The intent should be to maintain the line of development, which on
Apolerla. Avenue is 10 feet as depicted on the District Map.
• The setback must be preserved to maintain the community character and
public view corridor.
• The existing line of development on Park Avenue should also be retained.
• Application of reasonable setbacks within the intent of the zoning
regulations will provide a building envelope that meets or exceeds the
expectations of the applicant and the community:
Del Chesboro, 1508 Park Avenue, President of Little Balboa Island Property Owners
Association noted:
• The Board is against allowing the concept of 'reverse frontage setback'.
The. setback on. Apolena Avenue Is 10 feet and is consistent with the
neighbors and is the intent of the rule.
• In review of past variances, no one has ever gone into the setback of the
main streets.
• Allowing.this setback encroachment is precedent setting.
Bob Horgan, 202 Apolena Avenue noted his support of reducing the setback
because of the uniqueness of the lot. Due to the property configuration, they should
be allowed a side -yard setback on the east and the west and in the rear. The
precedent already exists to allow a setback on Apolena Avenue.
15
LN
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002
Mr. Hall Sealey, 1006 Park Avenue noted his concern of the floor area ratio and the
mass of the structure. At Commission inquiry, he noted the setback on his properly is
5 feet on Park Avenue, the interior property line setback is 3 feet and the alley is 5
feet.
Ad Katz 1006 Park Avenue stated that the square footage the applicant is trying to
achieve is over- reaching.. .I am concerned with the encroachment into the
Apolena Avenue setback and It would set a precedent for the Island. I don't see
how a third story can be allowed with a 100 square foot indoor area. We support a
variance, but oppose the Apolena setback. Our floor area ratio is 0.91.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner McDaniel noted:
• Hold on the l0 -foot setback on Apolena.
• A similar lot next door has 0.91 FAR that makes sense to me.
• They should get compatible use out of the property by maintaining the
above and probably more than I would want to give.
Commissioner Agajanian concurred with the previous statements and then !asked
about the 5-foot setback on Park Avenue that leads Into a garage. Is there a
problem with people parking their cars blocking the sidewalk under this kind of
arrangement?
Mr. Edmonston answered generally not. What we find is that with a 5 -foot setback it
Is short and any.,attempt to park there clearly blocks the sidewalk and most people
do not do that. If there is a 10 or 12 -foot setback, then there is a tendency to park in
the driveway. The approval that the Public Works forwarded to the City Council for
that driveway location did show a 5-foot setback off Park Avenue. Looking at the
photos that Mr. Harrison submitted at that time, there are other properties that have
a less then 5-foot setback. We would be opposed to that because it gets difficult for
the driver to see anybody coming until he Is way out onto the sidewalk and into the
street. I would hope that if there were adjustments to setbacks that the five -foot on
Park Avenue is kept.
Commissioner Gifford noted she is okay with the Park Avenue setback. A 10 -foot
setback could be preserved for most of the Apolena Avenue line, if there was some
minimal incursion.
Commissioner Kranzley stated he would preserve the 10 -foot setback and is okay
with the 5 -foot Park Avenue setback and the 3 foot on the west and north sides.
Commissioner Selich noted he is okay on all the setbacks. Referring to the plot plan
exhibit he noted that on Apolena Avenue there are variable measurements. I do
empathize with Mr. Page's decision, I certainly would not want to see all of Apolena
have 3 -foot setbacks, some encroachment into that 10 foot setback would not be
bad if there Is an off- setting area that creates more useable open space. In the
spirit of moving this item. along, I could go along with the 10 feet, as that is the
16
.a
(93
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 4, 2002 INDEX
predominant setback: -
Chairperson Tucker stated that a certain degree of encroachment Into the setback
along Apolena would be desirable. He noted his concern that the development
along that west side of Apolena is 10 feet just about all the way. I would agree that
there is some flexibility there, but I would like to see it remain 10 feet with some
interest. I am concerned that the square footage that we granted is going to end
up somewhere and we are going to have a 'boxier product. The product that was
designed is pretty attractive and fits in well with.the character of.Balboa Island.
Continuing, Chairperson Tucker stated that we could handle the variance tonight
and have the modification go back to the Modifications Committee for
determination. That way maybe they could come up with something that would
make everybody happy. The rest of the Commission-agreed. `
Commissioner Gifford asked the architect if there was some way to make the
project set back more to allow for a slight variation on Apolena Avenue. Discussion
continued on possible realignments /improvements.
Commissioner Kranzley suggested that this be sent back to the Modifications
Committee for a settlement and to allow a dialogue between the applicant and
the people who are against this.
Chairperson Tucker agreed, noting that there would be an opportunity for discussion
at the Modifications Committee. The goal Is having a more interesting structure at
the end of the block.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Variance No. 2002 -001 using
the reasonable setback approach that yields a total floor area of 2,495 square
feet and that we adopt a resolution with the conditions attached as exhibit A with
all references to a modification removed and refer Modification permit No. 2002-
032 to the Modifications Committee.
Ayes: Tucker, Gifford, Kranbey, Selich
Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian
Excused: Kiser
•y•
Additional Business.
a) City Council Follo�.t &. Wood reported that at the City Council meeting
of March 26th the Council Zr'pproygd on first reading both the Camco and
the Pacific Republic applications; r'oeivpdd a report from staff on the
professional services budget situation with the GenI Plan Update and on
the next agenda will have the traffic model consultant ffs'bal shady.
b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the
17 ��
RESOLUTION NO. 1556
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Ot
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2002 -001 (PA2002-
...001) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 APOLENA AVENUE
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve, and order as
follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Brumbaugh, the applicants, with
respect to property located at 201 Apolena Avenue (PA2002 -001) and legally described as the
easterly 40 feet of Lot Nos. 1 & 2, Block 7, Section 2 of the Balboa Isle Tract, requesting
approval of a variance to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit applicable to Balboa Island (VA2002-
001).
Section 2. A public hearing was held on March 21 and on April 4, 2002, at 7:30 P.M. in
the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice
of time, place and pumose of the meeting was given. Evidence, both written and "oral, was
to and considcre( by the i .ai Lai6 Coinnussion at the lneeCings.
Section 3. The PIanning 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 lot location and size are uncommon and the strict application of the setback
standards reduces the buildable area disproportionately compared to other lots
under identical zoning in the area. More of the subject lot is devoted to setback
areas than a typical lot in the area.with the strict application of the setback
standards. The subject property is afforded a 0.677 floor area to lot area ratio and
a typical lot on Balboa Island with a 10 -foot front yard setback is permitted a
1.076 floor area to lot area ratio.
b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
Without the granting of the increased area, a residence located on the property
would be limited to 1,625 square feet in area. This amount of area is
approximately 1,000 square feet below what other properties in the area could be
developed with. Granting the variance provides a similar property right enjoyed
by others in the immediate area under the identical zoning classification.
Exhibit No. 3 t 5
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,,
The increase in floor area limit is proportionately consistent with the area
permitted for other lots in the area. The abutting parcel to the west that also fronts
Park Avenue was granted a similar variance in 1998 to exceed the buildable area
imposed on.the lot:
d) 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 property is designated for two - family residential use, which is consistent with
what is planned for the area. No additional traffic, parking or demand for other
services should result from project implementation. Granting the request for the
increased floor area limit will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood
as it is consistent with the size and intensity of other, single - family and two
family residential properties in the area.
e) The design, of the proposed improvements. will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the
proposed development.
r
J.
f) That public improvements may be required of the developer pursuant to Section
20.91.040 of the Municipal Code.
g) The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt under
Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Variance No. 2002 -001, subject to the conditions set forth in Attachment "A."
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.
\ 6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 4h DAY OF APRIL 2002.
ATTEST:
AYES: locker. Gifford. Kranzley
and Selich
NOES: McDaniel and A,gaianian
ABSENT: Kiser
BY: -
Larry Tucker, Chairman
BY:
Earl McDantel, Secret
F
�l
Attachment "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Variance No. 2002-001
1. Development of the residential property shall be limited to a maximum floor area of 2,495
square feet (garage credit included), in conformance with a floor area limit not to exceed
1.039. The Modifications Committee shall approve any setback encroachments. through
review of the project site plan; floor plans, roof plans and elevations.
2. The Variance No. 2002 -001 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 if the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an
extension is otherwise granted.
3. A Certificate of Compliance, Lot Line Adjustment, or Lot Merger shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of any demolition permit.for the;existing residence.
4. The project shall comply with the City's most recently adopted version of the. Uniform
Building Code (U.B.C.). Due to the location of the project site, development of the project
will require liquefaction mitigation and compliance with flood plain requirements.
5. All improvements within the public right -of -way shall be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit.
6. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter. 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and
existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project,
unless 4erwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works
Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an
encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department.
7. An easement must be obtained from the owners of the property identified as 1006 Park
Avenue for a sewer lateral to serve the project. A sewer lateral and sewer lateral cleanout
must be installed in the alley between Coral Avenue and Apolena Avenue to serve 201
Apolena Avenue.
8. A 10 -foot radius comer cutoff at the comer of Apolena Avenue and Park Avenue shall be
dedicated to the public.
9. 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.
10. 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.
I..
May 8, 2002
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644.3200; FAX (949) 644.3229
Ian Harrison
1936 Teresita Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. NM2002-032
(PA2002 -001)
Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206
Appeal Period: 14 days after igproval date .
Application No: Modification Permit No. MD2002 -032
(PA2002 -001)
Applicant: Ian Harrison
Address of Property
Involved: 201 Apolena Avenue
Legal Description: Easterly 40 feet of Lot Nos.1 and 2, Block 7, Section 2 of the
Balboa Island Tract
Request as Modified and Approved:
1. Request to allow the construction of a new single - family dwelling, portions that encroach into the
10 -foot front yard setback (adjacent to Apolena Avenue) as follows:
a. Two entry porch support columns that encroach 4 feet and related roof overhang that
extends an additional 6 inches beyond the columns;
b. a poition of the covered entry that encroaches 2 feet, 6 -feet 6- inches wide;
C. a portion of the kitchen at the ground floor to encroach 3 feet and a related roof
overhang that extends an additional 6 inches, 17 -feet 6- inches wide; and
d. a second floor balcony also encroaches 3 feet, 9 -feet wide.
2. Request to allow encroachments into the 20 -foot front yard setback at the Park Avenue property
line as follows:
a. The two -car garage that encroaches 15 feet, 21 -feet 4- inches wide;
b. first floor living area that encroaches 4 feet, 9 feet wide;
C. second -floor living area that encroaches 13 feet, 19 -feet wide;
d. a third floor roof deck that encroaches 7 feet, 16 feet wide; and . .
e. a pop -out window feature that encroaches 15 feet, 8 -feet wide. .
3. Request to allow encroachments into the 10 -foot rear yard setback (northerly property line) as
follows:
a. a 7 -foot encroachment at the ground floor living area, 17 -feet 6- inches wide;
b. a 6 -foot encroachment at the second floor living area, 16 -feet wide;
C. a 2 -foot encroachment, 9 feet wide;
d. a 7- foot 8 feel encroachment at the chimney, 6 -feet wide;
e. a 7 -foot encroachment at the second floor uncovered deck, 10 -feet wide;
f. the roof overhang that may project an additional 6 inches beyond the face of the
approved encroachments.
All encroachments to maintain a minimum rear yard setback of 3 feet, with the exception of the
second floor living area that must maintain the 4-foot setback as proposed.
Exhibit No. 4 (�
l
May 8, 2002
Page - 2
Original Request:
Request to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling, portions that encroach into the 10-
foot front yard setback (adjacent to Apolena Avenue) as follows: two entry porch support columns that
encroach 4 feet and related roof overhang that extends an additional 6 inches beyond the columns; a 6-
foot 6 -inch wide portion of the entry that encroaches 2 feet; a 17 foot 6 -inch portion of the kitchen at
the ground floor to encroach 3 feet and a related roof overhang that extends an additional 6 inches. A
9-foot wide second floor balcony also encroaches 3 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback
adjacent to Apolena Avenue. 15 foot encroachments into the 20 foot front yard setback at the Park
Avenue property line by the two -car garage- and a portion of thefirst and second floor living areas and
the third floor roof deck. The following encroachments into the 10 foot rear yard setback (northerly
property line): a 7-foot encroachment at the ground floor, a 6-foot encroachment at the second floor,
an 8-foot encroachment at the chimney and a 7-foot encroachment at the second floor deck. The
property is located in the R -1.5 District.
The Modifications Committee,. on May 8, 2002, voted 3 ayes and 0. noes to approve the application
request as modified based on the following findings and subject to the following. conditions.
The Modifications Committee determined in this case that the proposal would not be detrimental to
persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved
would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
and made the following findings:
FINDINGS:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
designates the site for "Single Family Detached" residential use. The proposed residential
structure is consistent with this designation.
This 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 2
(Replacement or Reconstruction).
The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative
intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the
property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this
District for the following reason(s):
• The site, due to its configuration as the front portions of two existing lots, is
encumbered by default setbacks required by strict application of the Zoning Code,
Adopted Districting Maps and the lack of alley access.
• The application of the default setbacks limit reasonable use of the site for
development.
• The setback encroachments as proposed are consistent with setbacks maintained
by other properties in the vicinity that generally have Park Avenue as a side yard
with setback of 3 feet; Apolena Avenue as a front yard setback of 10 -feet; and the
northerly property line as a 3 -foot side yard setback for the neighboring property.
• The setback encroachments along Apolena Avenue vary to create an articulated
fagade with a setback that varies from 6 -feet to 12 -feet at the northerly end of the
building to as much as 18 -feet at the southerly end of the building, and does not
create a single building fagade extending across the subject property frontage.
• The setback .encroachments .along._Park .Avenue vary to create an articulated
fagade with a setback that varies from 5 -feet to more than 20 -feet and does not
create a single building fagade that extends across the Park Avenue frontage: . /\O
May 8, 2002
Page - 3
• The garage encroachment will not interfere with sight distance from any street,
alley or driveway. The requirement for the addition of windows will improve
sight distance for vehicle exiting the garage.
• The establishment of a garage setback between 5 and 20 feet along Park Avenue
could potentially cause the parking of a vehicle across the public sidewalk. That
would impede pedestrian traffic and create a potentially unsafe condition with
persons stepping into the public right -of -way to negotiate around such
obstruction.
4. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed will not be detrimental to persons,
property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the
existing use for the following reason(s):
The setbacks proposed are adequate to minimize adverse impacts to the
neighboring properties.
The project as approved provides articulated building facades at the Apolena
Avenue, Park Avenue and rear yard setback areas that minimize any adverse
impacts that would otherwise be caused by a single building fagade in the same
location.
5. The proposed setback encroachments will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining
residential properties because the established setbacks provide reasonable setbacks that
minimize the detrimental affects of the project.
6. The proposed project will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties
because:
The project as approved establishes a setback similar to that as applies to a reverse
frontage lot situation and the requirements specified by the Zoning Code.
The existing front yard setback encroachment along Apolena Avenue that extends
to the front property line will be removed and replaced by a structure that provides
an articulated building fagade that minimizes the visual impact as viewed from the
public street.
The 10 -foot front yard setback at the second floor living area adjacent to Apolena
Avenue is consistent with the setbacks maintained by structures next door and
down the block.
CONDITIONS.
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. The following encroachments shall be allowed to project into the 10 -foot required front
yard setback on the first floor adjacent to Apolena Avenue: a) two entry porch support
columns that encroach 4 feet and the related roof overhang that extends an additional 6
inches beyond the columns, b) a 6 -foot 6 -inch wide portion of the entry area that
encroaches 2 feet, and c) a 17 -foot 6 -inch wide portion of the kitchen that encroaches 3
feet and the related roof overhang that extends an additional 6 inches; and d.) a second
floor balcony that encroaches 3 feet, 9 -feet wide.
3. The following encroachments shall be allowed to project into the 20 -foot required setback
along the Park Avenue frontage: a) the two -car garage that is 21 -feet 4- inches wide that
encroaches 15 feet; b) first floor living area 9 feet wide that encroaches 4 feet; c.) Second -
floor living area 19 -feet wide that encroaches 13 feet; d.) third floor roof deck 16 -feet
I
M.ay 8, 2002
Page - 4
wide that encroaches 7 feet; and e.) a pop -out window feature 8 -feet wide that encroaches
15 feet.
4. The two -car garage shall be designed to include a window in the easterly and westerly
walls to provide improved sight distance for vehicles exiting the garage. The garage
design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that
adequate sight . distance is provided prior to the issuance of the building permits.
5. The following encroachments (encroachment and width dimensions specified are
maximums) shall be allowed to project into the required 10 -foot rear yard setback
adjacent to the. northerly property line: a.) a 7 -foot encroachment at the ground floor living
area 17 -feet 6- inches wide; b.) a 6 -foot encroachment at the second floor living area, 16 -feet
wide; c.) a 2 -foot encroachment, 9 feet wide; d.) 7 -foot encroachment at the chimney 6 -feet
wide and shall maintain a minimum 3 -foot rear yard setback; e.) a 7 -foot encroachment at
the second floor uncovered deck, 10 -feet wide; f.) the roof overhang may project an
additional 6 inches beyond the face of the approved encroachments..
6. No encroachments have been requested or are approved to project into the 3 -foot setback
along the westerly property line adjacent to the neighboring property on Park Avenue. All
new construction shall maintain that 3 -foot side setback, with the exception of the roof
overhang that shall be limited to a maximum of 6- inches.
7. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and
existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project,
unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works
Department through an encroachment permit or agreement if required.
8. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of
itself or -in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a
precedent for future approvals or decisions.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits and commencement of the construction, revised
plans which depict the approved encroachments shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for inclusion in the Modification Permit file.
10. All work performed within the public right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department under an encroachment permit/agreement if required.
11. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension
is approved prior to the expiration date of this approval, in accordance with Section
20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the
date of the decision. A filing fee of $741.00 shall accompany any appeal filed. No building
permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. A copy of the approval letter shall be
incorporated into the Building Department set of plans prior to issuance of the building permits or
issuance of revised plans.
n_�
.May 8, 2002
Page - 5
MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
By
Javier S. Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner
Chairperson
JSG:jjb
FAUSERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 20021PA2002 -001 \MD2002- 032Appr.doc
Attachment: Vicinity Map cc:
Petition in Opposition Chuck & Marlene Brumbaugh, property owners
27 Encanto Drive
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Appeared in
Opposition: Arie Katz, 1006 Park Ave
Harold Baker, 124 Coral Ave.
Craig Page, 200 Opal Ave.
Hall Seely, 2833 Carob St.
Lyle Dawn, 106 Apolena Ave.
Ed Heath, 123 Apolena Ave.
Barbara Martin, 118 Apolena Ave.
George Woods, 115 Apolena Ave.
Del Chesebro, 1508 Park Ave.
Appeared in
Support: None,
Project
Proponents: Ian Harrison, 1936 Teresita Ln.
Marlene Brumbaugh
Chas Brumbaugh
�3