HomeMy WebLinkAboutRifkin Residence (PA2002-151) (2)a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: September 19, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 3
�i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Bill Cunningham
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200
(949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days after final action
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
300 Larkspur Avenue
SUMMARY: Variance to exceed the allowable 1,188 square -foot floor area limit by 593
square feet in order to construct a single - family residence located in
Corona del Mar. Included is a Modification to allow a 7 -foot
encroachment into the 10 -foot rear yard (roof eaves an additional 18
inches).
ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. , approving the requested Variance No.
2002 -006 and Modification No. 2002 -083 (PA2002 -151) with conditions.
APPLICANT: Andrew Goetz
250 Newport Center Drive #102
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROPERTY
OWNERS: Jay Rifkin and Tom Goble
300 Larkspur Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92625
LOCATION: On the northeast corner of Seaview Avenue and Larkspur Avenue in Corona
del Mar.
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lot 2 in Block 238 of Corona del Mar Tract.
GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential
ZONING
DISTRICT: Two - Family Residential (R -2) District.
0 2�D0 490 Feet VICINITY � # AP
VA 2002- 006/MD 2002 -083 ^2m.151)
300 Larkspur Avenue
Current
Development:
Single - family residence
To the north:
Duplexes
To the east
Single-family
residence
To the south
Single-family
residence across Seaview Avenue
To the west:
Duplexes
across Larkspur Avenue
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 2 of 9
Introduction & Background
The applicant, Andrew Goetz, acting as agent for the property owners, Jay Rifkin and Tom
Goble, is seeking approval of a Variance and Modification Permit in order to demolish the
existing residence and construct a new single - family dwelling. The Variance request is to exceed
the allowable 1,188 square -foot floor area by 593 square feet, and the Modification Permit is to
allow a 7 -foot encroachment into the 10 -foot rear yard. The existing single - family dwelling
consists of approximately 800 square feet and one -car garage, and is located on a lot that is non-
conforming due to its size.
Proiect Overview
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing older residential structure and construct a new
single - family dwelling. The new dwelling will be three- stories within the 24 -foot height limit
and will consist of 1,549 square feet of living area and two -car covered parking. The residence
will have two bedrooms, and two and a half baths. The floor area distribution by floor is:
First Floor: 667 sq. ft. (Great room, entry and portion of the carport area)
Second Floor: 763 sq. ft. (Living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom/bath)
Third Floor 351 sq. ft. (Master bedroom suite)
Analysis
General Plan
The City's General Plan designates the site as Two - Family Residential. A single - family dwelling
is a permitted use within this land use designation. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan.
Development Standards
With the exception of the floor area limit and the rear yard setback, all of the other development
standards of the R -2 Zone have been met, as shown by the following table:
Project Development Characteristics Table
Ritlan Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 3 of 9
Building Height:
24 feet to the
Estimated
Pitched roof with ridge,
midpoint of a
average roof
hip and dormer elements
sloping roof with
height of 14
with a maximum height of
the ridge not to
feet.
29 feet (midpoint of the
exceed 29 feet
roof will be 24 feet).
Setbacks:
Front: (Larkspur Avenue)
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Sides: (North)
3 ft.
3 ft.
3 ft.
(South)
3 ft.
3 ft.
3 ft.
Rear: (East)
10 ft.
3 ft.
3 ft.
Parking provided:
2 spaces including 1
1 enclosed space
2 covered spaces
covered
Floor Area Variance
The Zoning Code provides that the maximum floor area is determined by multiplying the
buildable area of the site by a factor of 1.5. The buildable area, in turn, is defined as the lot area
less the setbacks. As noted above, the subject parcel is unique in that it is a small parcel and was
a portion of the parcel to the east. (Note: the Planning Commission recently approved a
Variance and Modification for floor area and reduced setback for the adjacent parcel -- see
discussion that follows). The subject parcel has a gross lot area of 1,890 square feet. Eliminating
setbacks results in a net buildable lot area of 792 square feet (33 ft. X 24 ft.), and a floor area
limit of 1,188 sq. ft. (792 sq. ft. X 1.5). The applicant is proposing to construct a dwelling with a
gross floor area of 1,781 square feet (1,549 square feet of living area and 232 square feet of
carport area). Therefore, the proposed plans exceed the allowable maximum floor area by 593
square feet.
Staff considered what would have been permitted if the property were developed with the
adjacent parcel to the west that fronts Seaview Avenue, and the degree to which the resulting
hypothetical project would be consistent with surrounding properties. As noted above, the
Planning Commission, at the meeting of August 22, 2002, approved a similar request for the
adjacent parcel to the east, resulting in a dwelling on that lot with a floor area of 1,857 sq. ft.
(1,674 sq. ft. of living area and 183 sq. ft. of covered parking area). Both parcels together would
have a gross land area of 3,540 square feet (118 feet by 30 feet). Subtracting the normal setbacks
would yield a buildable area of 2,232 square feet (93 feet by 24 feet), and would result in a gross
floor area of 3,348 square feet (1.5 X 2,232).
Assuming that the subject parcel were combined with the adjacent parcel to the east, the
proposed gross floor area for both parcels combined would total 3,638 sq. ft (1,781 sq. ft. for the
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 4 of 9
proposed dwelling + 1,857 sq. ft. for the adjacent dwelling), and would result in a structure that
exceeds the maximum floor area by 290 square feet (8.66 %).
The following table compares the site and area information of the applicant's proposal with other
properties in the vicinity of the property:
Development
Typical Lot in
Standards
Subject Lot
the Tract
Proposed
Setbacks: Front:
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Sides:
3 ft.
3 ft.
3 ft.
Rear:
10 ft.
5 ft.
3 ft.
Gross Land Area:
30 ft. x 63 ft. =
30 ft. x 118 ft. =
30 ft. x 63 ft. =
1,890 sq. ft.
3,540 sq. ft.
1,890 sq. ft.
Buildable Area:
33 ft. x 24 ft. =
24 ft. x 93 ft. =
33 ft. x 24 ft =
792 sq. ft.
2,232 sq. ft.
792 sq. ft.
Floor Area Limit:
(Buildable Area x 1.5)
1,188 sq. ft.
3,348 sq. ft.
1,781 sq. ft.
Setback Area:
1,098 sq. ft.
1,308 s . ft.
888 sq. ft.
Floor Area to Land
Area Ratio:
0.63
0.95
0.94
Using the floor area to land area ratio comparison, the project is less than the 0.95 floor area/land
area ratio afforded typical lots in Corona del Mar with a 20 -foot front yard setback.
In the past the Planning Commission has also used the reasonable setback method to determine a
possible floor area for similar cases. As noted in the foregoing table, all other lots in the vicinity
have rear yards on an alley, and therefore require a 5 -foot rear yard setback. For the purposes of
this case, staff used the required front setback of 20 feet and the required side setbacks of 3 feet,
but modified the rear setback to 5 feet in -lieu of the 10 -foot setback. Using these setbacks, the
residence could be 1,368 square feet (38 ft. x 24 ft. x 1.5 = 1,368) and results in a floor area to
land area ratio of 0.72. The applicant's request exceeds this possible floor area limit by 413
square feet (1,781 sq. ft. - 1,368 sq, ft. = 413 sq. ft.).
Staff considered the impacts to the design of the dwelling if the applicant were required to meet
the maximum floor area and eliminate 593 square feet. The results would potentially be the
elimination of the first floor great room as well as additional area on an upper floor, or the
elimination of the third floor master suite, resulting in a residence with a total living area of 956
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 5 of 9
square feet and possibly a one - bedroom dwelling. In staff's opinion, the structure as proposed by
the applicant is consistent with surrounding residences, and the elimination of nearly 600 square
feet would result in a dwelling that is considerably smaller than surrounding residences. This is
supported by the floor area/land area ratio proposed.
The Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for Variances. These
mandatory 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 andlor uses in the same district.
The lot location and size are not typical of the other lots in the area and the strict application
of the setback standards would reduce the permitted building area to 1,188 square feet
(including a one car enclosed garage), and would result in a dwelling of limited size and
considerably smaller than newer surrounding residences.
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 variance to increase the floor area the resultant structure would
be inferior in size and inconsistent in design to other dwellings located in the vicinity.
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 project as proposed by the applicant will result in a structure that is similar to and
consistent with other dwellings in the area. The resulting gross floor area of 1,781 square
feet is comparable with the floor to land area allowed on other properties with taking into
account differing lot sizes, and the floor area ratio as proposed does not exceed that of other
properties in the neighborhood.
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
establishment of the floor area of 1,781 square feet will not, therefore, be detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood, and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding
dwellings with respect to size, bulk and design.
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 6 of 9
Based on the foregoing, staff believes that the facts support the approval of the Variance request.
Setback Modification
The following chart compares the setbacks of the existing residence, the proposed building, and
zoning requirements.
The new structure will be located the same distance from the front, side and rear property lines as
the existing structure. Applicant is requesting a three -foot rear yard setback instead of the
required ten -foot setback. As noted above, other properties in the area have an alley on the rear,
and therefore have a five -foot rear setback requirement. Since the subject property does not have
an alley to the rear, the setback requirement is 10 feet.
In order to approve a Modification Permit request, the finding required is 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. "
As noted above, the parcel is unusual in terms of its small size and does not abut an alley. Similar
to the foregoing analysis of the Variance to establish the allowable floor area, staff considered the
type of structure that would result if the lot were combined with the adjacent lot to the east, and
therefore being similar to other lots in the area. If combined, there would be a five -foot setback
along the alley, and there would be no setback requirement along what is actually the east
property line, resulting in a structure potentially being designed as a continuous wall. In
summary, the proposed structure will occupy approximately the same footprint as would be
achievable if the two parcels were consolidated and developed with a duplex, and the building as
proposed is similar to and compatible with other surrounding residential structures.
In addition to the foregoing, staff notes that the east (rear) property line acts as a side yard to the
adjoining property and the three -foot setback as requested is comparable to side yard setbacks of
other lots in the area. The residence recently approved on the lot to the east will have a 3 -foot
setback along the common lot line, resulting in six feet between the two dwellings, which is
comparable to other side yard separation distances of other typical lots in Corona del Mar.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, in staff's opinion, the finding for the Modification
Permit can be made with respect to the rear setback.
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 7 of 9
Existing Setbacks
Required Setbacks
Proposed Setbacks
Front
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
North side
3 feet
3 feet
3 feet
South side
3 feet
3 feet
3 feet
Rear (East)
3 feet
10 feet
3 feet
The new structure will be located the same distance from the front, side and rear property lines as
the existing structure. Applicant is requesting a three -foot rear yard setback instead of the
required ten -foot setback. As noted above, other properties in the area have an alley on the rear,
and therefore have a five -foot rear setback requirement. Since the subject property does not have
an alley to the rear, the setback requirement is 10 feet.
In order to approve a Modification Permit request, the finding required is 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. "
As noted above, the parcel is unusual in terms of its small size and does not abut an alley. Similar
to the foregoing analysis of the Variance to establish the allowable floor area, staff considered the
type of structure that would result if the lot were combined with the adjacent lot to the east, and
therefore being similar to other lots in the area. If combined, there would be a five -foot setback
along the alley, and there would be no setback requirement along what is actually the east
property line, resulting in a structure potentially being designed as a continuous wall. In
summary, the proposed structure will occupy approximately the same footprint as would be
achievable if the two parcels were consolidated and developed with a duplex, and the building as
proposed is similar to and compatible with other surrounding residential structures.
In addition to the foregoing, staff notes that the east (rear) property line acts as a side yard to the
adjoining property and the three -foot setback as requested is comparable to side yard setbacks of
other lots in the area. The residence recently approved on the lot to the east will have a 3 -foot
setback along the common lot line, resulting in six feet between the two dwellings, which is
comparable to other side yard separation distances of other typical lots in Corona del Mar.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, in staff's opinion, the finding for the Modification
Permit can be made with respect to the rear setback.
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 7 of 9
Building Height
The applicant's plans as submitted indicate that one roof midpoint (located on the north side of the
building) will exceed the 24 -foot height limit by approximately nine inches. Staff has discussed
this with the applicant, and he stated that he could and would modify the plans to lower the roof to
comply with the City's height limitations. A condition (No. 10) has been included in the draft
resolution.
Parkway Trees
The Public Works Department has noted that the proposed driveway may not be located the
minimum required distance from an existing large tree located in the Seaview Avenue parkway.
Therefore, a condition (No. 5) has been added to the draft Resolution requiring further review and
evaluation by the Public Works Department and protection of the existing tree or replacement as
deemed necessary by the Department.
Environmental Review
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 3 (New construction of a
single - family residence in a residential zone).
Conclusion
In staff's opinion, the request for the Variance to allow a floor area of 1,781 square feet and the
requested Modification Permit to allow the reduced rear setback appears reasonable and will result
in a residential structure that is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding dwellings.
Therefore, staff recommends that the request be approved. If the Commission concurs, the draft
resolution for project approval should be considered (Exhibit No. 1).
The Commission also has the option to further modify the project to increase the setbacks and/or
to decrease the floor area suggested if deemed appropriate and necessary to mitigate detrimental
effects that may be identified at the public hearing.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Prepared by:
WEI- AM CUNNINGHAM
Contract Planner
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 8 of 9
Exhibits
1. Resolution No. 2002 -; findings and conditions of approval
2. Project plans
Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151)
September 19, 2002
Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO.
2002 -006 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2002 -083 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 LARKSPUR AVENUE (PA2002-
151)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was filed by Andrew Goetz, agent for the property owners, Jay
Rifkin and Tom Goble, with respect to property located at 300 Larkspur Avenue and described as Lot 2 in
Block 238 of Corona del Mar Tract, requesting approval of Variance No. 2002 -006 to exceed the 1,188
square-foot floor area by 593 square feet, and Modification Permit No. 2002 -083 to allow a 7 -foot
encroachment into the 10 -foot rear yard (roof eaves an additional 18 inches), in order to construct a new
single - fancily dwelling within Corona del Mar.
Section 2. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2002 in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of
the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Carmnission at this meeting.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building
or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply
generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district.
The lot size is atypical of other lots in the area and the strict application of the setback
standards would reduce the buildable area a very small size that would result in a structure that
is not typical of the neighborhood. If the lot were combined with the adjacent lot to the east,
the dwelling proposed by the applicant would be similar to the surrounding properties located
on similar parcels.
b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
With the granting of the Variance to exceed the maximum floor area by 593 square feet the
applicant would be able to construct a dwelling that is similar in design and size to other
surrounding properties.
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.
V
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 4
The project as proposed by the applicant will result in a structure that is similar to and
consistent with other dwellings in the area in both size and bulk. Further, a similar Variance
and Modification Permit have been granted for a similar adjacent parcel.
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 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 increase in floor area
593 square feet will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a
structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings with respect to size, bulk and design.
e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed
modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons:
The setbacks as proposed would result in the development of the site to be similar to other
properties and will result in a structure that is similar to and compatible with other residential
structures in the area since the 10 -foot rear setback is not required for other lots in the
neighborhood and the size and configuration of the subject parcel is not typical of other lots in
the vicinity. In addition, the rear lot line acts as a side yard between the subject property and
the property located to the east -- the proposed 3 -foot rear lot line results in a total 6 -foot
separation between the proposed dwelling and the dwelling to the east, a distance that is typical
of separation between residences in the area.
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 20.1.040 of the
Municipal Code.
h) The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt under Class 3
(Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone).
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Variance No. 2002 -006 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -083, subject to the Conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A."
Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review
Planning Commission Resolution No.
3of4
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 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002.
BY:
Steven Kiser, Chairman
I
Shant Agajanian, Secretary
AYES:
0
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT "A"
*61 I.`Ti7 M, U U; T i] VI /: \ 9
Variance No. 2002 -006 &
Modification Permit No. 2002 -083
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan,
elevations and preliminary grading plan dated August 1, 2002, with the exception of any revisions
required by the following conditions.
2. Variance No. 2002 -006 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -083 shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire
Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent City - adopted version of
the Uniform Building Code.
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
5. 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.
6. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory
completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the public improvements.
7. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to
further review by the Traffic Engineer.
8. Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Compliance prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
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. The plans shall be revised so that all portions of the structure and the roof elements comply
fully with Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) of the Zoning Code.
3