Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRifkin Residence (PA2002-151)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Hearing Date: Agenda Item: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151) 300 Larkspur Avenue October 3, 2002 1 Bill Cunningham (949) 644 -3200 14 days after final action 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. ect 0 ,2 0 40 :.eef VICINI.W MAP VA 2002- 006/MD 2002 -083 (PA2002 -151) 300 Larkspur Avenue S. Current Development: Single - family residence To the north: Duplexes To the east Single-faniq residence To the south Single-family residence across Seaview Avenue To the west: Duplexes across Larkspur Avenue Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151) October 3, 2002 Page 2 of 4 Discussion This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2002, in order to re- advertise and distribute a revised public hearing notice. The original public notice described the project as "exceeding the allowable 1,388 square -foot floor area limit by 336 square feet" The actual project description is to exceed the allowable 1,188 square-foot floor area limit by 593 square feet. The corrected notice is attached as Exhibit 2. In addition to re- advertising the public hearing, the Planning Commission requested the applicant to provide a garage door on the carport. A revised exhibit, showing the elevation with the garage door as well as the adjacent recently- approved dwelling to the east, is included as Exhibit 3. However, in order to maintain at least one parking space as a carport, and therefore, not further exceed the floor area limits, it will be necessary to maintain at least two sides of one car space open. This can be accomplished by redesigning the northeastern portion of structure wall to eliminate a portion of the storage/laundry room and opening approximately eight feet of the wall. A new condition has been added to the Resolution requiring the north carport wall be opened (Condition No. 11). The revised Resolution is included as Exhibit 1. In addition to the foregoing, a letter in opposition was received that was not included in the original Planning Commission report. The letter is included as Exhibit 4. The original staff report for the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2002, is included as Exhibit 5. With the exception of the revisions to the carport and the addition of a garage door, no new evidence or changes have been incorporated into the project so as to change the original staff analysis or recommendation. hi 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, including an added condition requiring a garage door and carport wall revision, 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 if deemed appropriate and necessary to mitigate detrimental effects that may be identified at the public hearing. Submitted by: PATRICK ALFORD Acti irector Prepared by: WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM Contract Planner Gf/.��tti Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151) October 3, 2002 Page 3 of 4 Exhibits 1. Resolution No. 2002 -_; findings and conditions of approval (Revised) 2. Revised Notice of Public Hearing 3. Revised South Elevation with Adjacent Dwelling 4. Letter in Opposition 5. Draft Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2002 6. Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits, September 19, 2002 Rifidn Residence (PA2002 -151) October 3, 2002 Page 4 of 4 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 - family 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 Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district. The 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. 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 A Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 4 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. M M Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary AYES: Planning Commission Resolution No. Paee 4 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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. 11. The plans shall be revised so that a garage door is included and a portion of the northeast carport wall is opened approximately eight feet in order to classify the easternmost parking space as a carport. IN, EXHIBIT 2 REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 0 REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Variance No. 2002 -006 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -083 (PA2002 -151) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Andrew Goetz for Variance No. 2002 -006 and Modification No. 2002- 083 on property located at 300 Larkspur Avenue. The property is located in the Two - Family Residential (R -2) District. Request for a Variance to exceed the allowable 1,188 square -foot floor area limit by 593 square feet 'in order to construct a single -fara ft 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). 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 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 3rd day of October. 2002, at the hour of 6:30 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. Shant Agajanian, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant W EXHIBIT 3 REVISED SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION (WITH ADJACENT DWELLING) EXHIBIT 4 LETTER IN OPPOSITION 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: 300 Larkspur Modification Permit No. MD2002 -083 PA 2002 -151 ATTN: Modifications Committee 230 Iris Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 September 14, 2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY nC KIMAIOnoT n_,E•A(:H AM SEP 19 2002 PM 71819110111112111213141918 This modification request should be denied. The increase requested is 24% more square footage than allowed and an encroachment into 50% of the current rear yard area. If you approve this, I assume the next request before the modifications committee will be for an increase of 1,000 square feet on a 4,000 square foot allowable residence. At some point, the City must stop approving all these exceptions to existing zoning. Sincerely, n S. Adams /c'v Lc c e' Patricia A. Adams I � EXHIBIT 5 DRAFT MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 particular problem could be solved. H-,suggested that this item be continued to October 17111 Motion was made Kiser to continue this matter to October 17th. Mr. Jeannette answered that he d show situations where these same types of lift devices are used. He will provide som ' rmation on the lift program and agrees to the continuance. Ayes: Toerge, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: McDaniel Absent: Agajanian, Gifford SUBJECT: Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151) 300 Larkspur Avenue 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 Iafoot rear yard (roof eaves an additional 18 inches). Ms. Temple noted this is the proposal for the other half of a lot in Corona del Mar for which there was consideration a couple of meetings ago. Mr. Campbell noted: • Lot next door had a 5 -foot alley setback. • Consideration was given for deviaiton from rear yard setback to the north of 7 feet into the 10 foot rear setback. • Side yard adjacent to the rear yard of this property was given a 1 -foot encroachment into the 4 foot setback for the second story. • A 17 -foot encroachment was given for the front yard onto Seaview. • This application is asking for a 7 -foot deviation into the 10 -foot rear yard. • The eaves get to hang over an additional 18 inches. Commissioner Selich asked why the Planning Commission did not review these two applications at the same time. He was answered that the applications came in at different times. The first project that came in was presented to the Commisison in a timely fashion and this application came in later. Staff did not want to hold up the first application for review of both applications. Continuing, Commissioner Selich noted that it would have been nice to review these two applications simultaneously as long as there was no infringement on property rights or process timing. Ms. Temple requested a specific discussion at a later meeting on some additional policy or position of the Commission that when staff is aware of this type of inter- 13 INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -151 Continued to 10!03/2002 Iw DRAFT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 relationship between projects which are not intended to be submitted at the same time as to whether you would feel comfortable with staff actually telling the applicant we are going to hold it and keep them together. We do often get criticized for not moving efficiently and we want to be consistent with how we deal with our applicants. Chairperson Kiser noted there are two separate owners of the two lots who happen to have the same architect. The applciations came into the City at different times and should be evaluated at the appropriate times. Public comment was opened. Andrew Goetz, architect for the project noted: The first variance was started six weeks prior to this second variance. This particular house has been designed to compliment the house next door in massing. It will be more of a country house with slate roofing and stucco. • This application is considered to be the balance of a whole lot and in response to the previous application we ask for 1549 square feet. • Propose a garage door as an alternative to the open carport and still have it open on the two sides. The height limit has been complied with and there is open space between the two buildings. The two large trees on Seaview are right between the projects and will remain. Commissioner Selich asked if the wall will be removed at the laundry facility and what is the purpose of the area between the great room and the carport area? Mr. Goetz stated that the laundry facility needs to be only five feet wide. The balance of that could be open and meet the requirement. That area will have a nice flooring material and should there be a party, they could use that space simply by moving the cars out. Larry Romine, resident of Larkspur Avenue, asked for denial of this variance due to the excessive floor area. Continuing, he noted: • Granting a larger floor area could be construed as a grant of special privilege as the floor area to lot area ratio would be further exceeded. • The City has used the reasonable set back method to establish an acceptable floor area as a basis for the approval of previous floor area variances. • What Is being requested now is not what was in the public notice. • What better place In the City for a small home then on a small lot. If someone needs a larger home, they should build it on a larger lot that can accommodate that without a variance. • If the variance was for someone who had owned and occupied the property for some years with changed circumstances that necessitated a larger home I would feel more sympathetic. Based on what has happened with other properties in the area, I doubt this is the case. Most likely a 14 INDEX 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 DRAFT speculator bought the property and as soon as construction is finished, will sell the property and maximize his profit. The site preparation and construction on the two lots will be done concurrently. • Is there an easement for the gas, water and sewer utilities? • People who bought the property should have known the building restrictions and should not have bought it anticipating a variance approval. 1 ask that you do not approve this as these variance excesses are detrimental to the character of Corona del Mar. Chairperson Kiser asked for clarification of the difference In the variance request. Mr. Campbell answered that the notice that was sent out was to exceed the allowable 1388 square feet by 336 square feet. Upon full development of the staff report, staff discovered an error in the initial calculation and it was actually a 1,188 square foot limit and exceeding it by 593 square feet. The result is the same house but the numbers are different. Chairperson Kiser noted there is quite a difference, almost twice. Does that make the public notice invalid? Ms. Clauson answered that the public notice doesn't accurately represent the amount of the requested variance. I don't think it was an appropriate notice because it implied the variance was only 336 square feet and this is a significant difference. Mr. Romine, at Commission inquiry, explained that everything being built in Corona del Mar is being built to the maximum. You are seeing a solid wall of buildings along Seaview. The bigger buildings are occupied by more people generally that have more cars. Chairperson Kiser noted that this project is to have a floor area to land area ratio per the staff report at .94 and typical lots in this tract have about .95. It is slightly under what the neighborhood is. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the application. The only reaason this property needs a variance is that all of the setback requirements that are part of the computation are based on lots running east and west. Now there is half a lot that runs north and south and so the setbacks end up being such that the computation on the buildable area Is zero. If you just apply the math, the typical lot in Corona del Mar is 3540 square feet, this one is 1890 square feet, multiply that fraction by the 3348 that is available It leaves you with 1787 square feet and the request here is for 1781 square feet. The last one was the opposite in that it asked for more square footage and the computation was 1560 square feet. This application meets the requirements and that is what the policy is of the City. We don't always grant variances, but there is a bunch of odd bail lots that we try to bring into parity. Your problem is with the philosophy of the amount of intensity that can go on the lots. All we are doing is what the Council has set for use as a policy making body, 15 INDEX 19 DRAFT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 There is a discussion going on with updating our General Plan. Now is the time to weigh in because whatever gets passed out of that, the Planning Commissions in the future will follow that policy. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt Resolution No. 1573, approving the requested Variance No. 2002-006 and Modification No. 2002 -083 with conditions and with the change of the garage door as depicted in the elevations with the sides being opened. Chairperson Kiser noted that due to the noticing difference, this item should be continued to renotice with the correct variance request. Substitute motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continue this item to October 3, 2002 to re- notice the application. Ayes: Toerge, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: McDaniel Absent: Agajanian, Gifford a) ity Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at the last Council meeting of Se ember l Om they approved the Code Amendment allowing the rider sign and brochure box on real estate signs; approved the project on Orange Street, General Plan Amendment and the Local Coastal Plan Amendmen , pproved the Code Amendment for the front yard setback on Finley and ma the appointment of Mr. Toerge. The Mayor has asked staff to look at the set ks in the vicinity of Newport Island to make them more consistent. b) Oral report from Planning mmission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Co issioner Selich reported that there was a discussion on the Economic study another presentation on the second phase will be made at the next meeti C) Report from Planning Commission's repre tatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative t the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to rep on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a futu 16 INDEX Additional Business 19