No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/26/1999 - R-A District Height Limits - Amendment 887• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 33� NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92656 (949) 644-32 -; FAX (949) 644-3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: R -A District Height Limits (Amendment 887) April 26, 1999 8 Patrick J. Alford (949) 644 -3235 SUMMARY: An amendment to Section 20.65.040 (Height Limitation Zones) of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. ACTION: Introduce ordinance and set for public hearing on May 10, 1999. Background On February 18, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Variance 1226 for an R -A District property located at 2128 Mesa Drive. The variance was to exceed the height limits for proposed alterations and additions to an existing single - family dwelling. The investigation of the variance raised questions as to the appropriateness of the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone in the R -A District. The Planning Commission concluded that while Variance 1226 could not be supported, it may be appropriate •to place the R -A District into a higher height limitation zone. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution of intent. The Planning Commission initiated the amendment on March 18, 1999. Analysis The subject amendment would affect only three (3) residential properties located off of Mesa Drive. The subject properties were annexed to the City in 1955 and placed in the Unclassified (U) District. At that time, the height limits in the U District were specified on a case -by -case basis through use permits. In 1956 and 1962, the Planning Commission approved use permits for the single - family residences currently developed on the subject properties. In each case, the Planning Commission included a condition that the project to be constructed to R -A District standards. At that time, the R -A District had a maximum height limit of thirty-five (35) feet. When the Mesa Drive properties were reclassified to the new R -A District in 1997, the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone was deemed appropriate because Mesa Drive is principally a single - family residential area and this is the height limit zone for all single - family and two - family districts. However, most single - family and two - family lots have less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of land area and are less than fifty (50) feet wide. In contrast, the R -A District requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres and a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet. These larger lots can accommodate a higher high limit. i Planning Commission Action Discussion at the Planning Commission centered on the history of height limits and the characteristics of the Mesa Drive properties. The Planning Commission concluded the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone is appropriate for the R -A District and voted unanimously (with one absent) to recommend approval to the City Council. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD PATRICK J. ALFORD Assistant City Manager Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Draft ordinance. 2. January 21, 1999 Planning Commission staff report. 3. April 8, 1999 Planning Commission staff report. 4. January 21, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. 5. Draft April 8, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. R -A District Height limits April 26,1999 Page 2 • ORDINANCE 99- • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE R -A DISTRICT [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT 8871 WHEREAS, in 1956 and 1962, the Planning Commission approved use permits for each of the single - family residences in the Residential- Agricultural District and allowed development up to thirty -five feet in height; and WHEREAS, the Residential - Agricultural District requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres and a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet and can accommodate building heights up to thirty -two (32) feet; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that it is appropriate to • place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural District into the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone;and WHEREAS, on April 8, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1999, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, it has been determined that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations. • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS Iola�Ci��dL.� SECTION 1: Section 20.65.040 (Height Limitation Zones) of Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code" shall be revised to read as provided in Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on April 26, 1999, and adopted on the 10th day of May, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 0 • • Y EXHIBIT "A" • 20.65.040 Height Limitation Zones In addition to the development standards established in the various districts, there shall be 5 height limitation zones within the City. The designations, locations, and boundaries of these height limitation zones shall be as shown on the "Height Limitation Zones" map, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. In each height limitation zone the maximum permitted height shall be measured in accordance with the definitions contained in this chapter. A. 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 24 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 24 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all R -1, R -1.5, R -2, and OS Districts. B. 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone the maximum height limit shall be 28 feet; provided, however, that structures may exceed 28 feet up to a maximum of 32 feet in an adopted planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all MFR Districts. • C. 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit shall be 26 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 26 feet up to a maximum of 35 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts, other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and OS Districts, within the area known as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone established by Ordinance 92 -3 and shown on the Height Limitation Zones map. L J D. 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 32 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and OS Districts which have boundaries not falling within the area above described as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, or within the High -Rise Height Limitation Zone. E. High Rise Height Limitation Zone. In the High Rise Height Limitation Zone the . height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet. 3 5 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Ward Residence (John E. Wells, applicant) 116 Kings Place January 21, 1999 1 Patrick J. Alford 14 SUMMARY: Request to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 11 feet. ACTION: Hold hearing; approve, modify, or deny: Variance No. 1224 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block E, Tract 1219 ZONING DISTRICT: Single Family Residential (R -1) District LAND USE DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential OWNER: Donald R. and Barbara Ward, Newport Beach • • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e�EW RT COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r J PLANNING DEPARTMENT 55oo NEWPORT BOULEVARD a �q[IFOFt+�� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 82658 (949) 644-5% FAX (949) 644-5250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Appeal Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Ward Residence (John E. Wells, applicant) 116 Kings Place January 21, 1999 1 Patrick J. Alford 14 SUMMARY: Request to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 11 feet. ACTION: Hold hearing; approve, modify, or deny: Variance No. 1224 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block E, Tract 1219 ZONING DISTRICT: Single Family Residential (R -1) District LAND USE DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential OWNER: Donald R. and Barbara Ward, Newport Beach • • 0 • L J VICINITY MAP -- 49.20 _; CI) e C ©, n o y y / /NRC qO l f 0 P pe o 0 G 4 y 0. i.riws r�•0-T r_-- '7111 yI�I i 20 ASSFW'-s MAD MARCH /DS, /RACr R'n YII IN, jjp.rl4e Project Site 1,WW" 1ORA r[ACf MOJiI! N. M SI • P!G Zl CWYIY 0 C?O Variance 1224 Subject Property Property and and SurroundingLand Uses Current land use: Single family residential. To the north: Single family residential. To the south: Single family residential. To the east: Dover Drive, with open space (Castaways Park site) beyond. To the west: Kings Road, with single family residential beyond. Variance 1224 (Ward Residence) January 21, 1998 Page 2 7 Points and Authority Environmental Review (California Environmental Quality Act) • • It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (existing facilities). Conformance with the General Plan • The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" uses. A single - family dwelling unit is a permitted use within this designation. Conformance with the Zoning Code • Single family residential dwelling units are a permitted use in the R -1 District. • Variance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. Background On September 24, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project and the hearing was continued to October 22, 1998. • On October 22, 1998, the project was continued to November 5, 1998 at the request of the applicant. On November 5, 1998, the project was removed from the Planning Commission calendar at the request of the applicant. Analysis Variances are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Section 65920, CGC). Accordingly, a variance proposal that is exempt from CEQA, such as this project, must be acted upon within 60 days of the environmental determination and is permitted only one 90 -day extension. In the case of this project, the 60 -day period would have ended on November 10, 1998. However, the applicant's request for a continuance triggered the 90 -day extension and pushed this date back to February 8, 1999. Therefore, the Planning Commission must either approve or deny this application before this date. Section 20.91.035 (B) of the Zoning Code requires that the following findings must be made in order to approve a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of variance 1224 (Ward Residence) January 21. 1998 Page 3 O this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Staff has concluded that while the property does contain topographic constraints, there exist alternative design options that would allow the project to be constructed and conform to the height limits. Specifically, a roof element could be designed that follows the contours of the slope. Such a design would be in conformance with the height limits established for this area and would be consistent with the heights of structures on the surrounding properties. Adjacent properties have similar topographies and have been able to construct new dwellings, or remodel existing dwellings, within the height limits and without the approval of a variance. For this reason, staff does not believe that the "special circumstances" finding can be made and that an approval would constitute a special privilege. A more thorough discussion of these issues is provided in the September 24, 1998 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment #3) Discussion at the Planning Commission hearing focused on impacts to the views of adjacent properties. The Planning Commission noted that the protection of views became an issue because the applicant was seeking an exception to the rules. The Planning Commission expressed concerns that granting the variance would set a precedent that would make it difficult to deny similar requests on the adjacent properties. Variance 1224 (Ward Residence) January 21, 1998 Page 4 9 Recommendation Staff recommends denial without prejudice of Variance 1224 with the findings contained in Exhibit "A." A denial without prejudice will waive the one -year prohibition on filing a application that is the same or substantially the same. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: Prepared by: PATRICK J. ALFORD Senior Planner 1. Exhibit "A" (findings for denial) 2. Applicant's project description and justification. 3. September 24, 1998 Planning Commission staff report. 4. September 24, 1998P1anning Commission minutes. 5. Site plan, floor plans, and elevations. M�WAA Variance 1224 (Ward Residence) January 21, 1998 Page 5 0 u A) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: EWER COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �m Agenda Item No.: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( Staff Person: VAS 5500 NEWPORT BOULEVARD . CytaaN�� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-520; FAX (949) 644-5250 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: R -A District Height Limits April 8, 1999 6 Patrick J. Alford (949) 644 -3235 SUMMARY: An amendment to Section 20.65.040 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. ACTION: Conduct public hearing; adopt Resolution No. recommending approval or modification of Amendment 887 to the City Council or disapprove Amendment 887. Background On February 18, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Variance 1226 for an R -A District property located at 2128 Mesa Drive. The variance was to exceed the height limits for proposed alterations and additions to an existing single - family dwelling. The investigation of the variance raised questions as to the appropriateness of the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone in the R -A District. There are only three (3) residential properties in the R -A District. The subject properties were annexed to the City in 1955 as part of the Upper Newport Bay Annexation. The subject properties were placed in the Unclassified (U) District. At that time, the height limits in the U District were specified on a case -by -case basis through use permits. In 1956 and 1962, the Planning Commission approved use permits for the single - family residences currently developed on the subject properties. In each case, the Planning Commission included a condition that the project to be constructed to R -A District standards. At that time, the R -A District had a maximum height limit of thirty -five (35) feet. The Planning Commission concluded that while Variance 1226 could not be supported, it may be appropriate to place the R -A District into a higher height limitation zone. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution of intent. The Planning Commission initiated the amendment on March 18, 1999. Analysis When the Mesa Drive properties were reclassified to the new R -A District in 1997, the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone was deemed appropriate because Mesa Drive is principally a single - family residential area and this is the height limit zone for all single - family and two- family districts. However, most single - family and two- family lots have less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of land area and are less than fifty (50) feet wide. In contrast, the R -A District requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres and a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet. Therefore, it may be appropriate to place the R -A District into the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone. All three of the subject properties exceed the R -A District requirements for land area and lot width. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone, the basic height limit for any structure is thirty -two (32) feet. However, a structure may exceed the basic height limit up to a maximum of fifty (50) _feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. Special findings are required in order to exceed the basic height limit to insure that the visual character of the surrounding area is protected, that public visual open space is maintained, and that there are no undesirable or abrupt changes in building elevations. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director r Attachment: Draft resolution. Prepared by: PATRICK J. ALFORD Senior Planner 0 0 R -A District Height Limits April 8. 1999 Page 2 /17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1999 Ward Residence (John E. Wells, applicant) 116 Kings Place • Variance No. 1224 Request to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 11 feet. Ms. Temple noted that this application was previously considered in 1998. At the conclusion of the second public hearing, it was removed from the calendar of the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. Under the terms of the Permit Streamlining Act, an application of this nature is required to be acted on within a certain time frame. The time frame, within which the application could become deemed automatically approved through the operation of law, is coming upon us. Therefore, staff has placed this item back on the agenda for final action by the Planning Commission. As noted, the applicant has not submitted any new data or alteration to the original application. Based on the information in the original staff report, it is the recommendation of staff that the findings for the Variance can not be supported. However, since the applicant has expressed an interest in pursuing a subsequent modification to the application, it is staff's recommendation that the item be denied without prejudice, in order to allow submittal of a new application in a shorter time frame than one year as provided for by the Municipal Code. In answer to Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that if the Planning Commission takes an action to deny a variance, then a similar application could not be submitted for a one -year period. Public comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to deny, without prejudice, Variance No. 1224. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Findings: 1. The granting of a variance to allow portions of the roof and terrace level rails to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant because: • The property owner could design a roof element that is not `11.193 Item No. 1 V 1224 Denied without prejudice 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 21, 1999 continuous. but steps down to follow the slope. which would meet the permitted height requirements. • The proposed structure without the additional height will provide for a house that is comparable to existing houses in the area. • Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography have been able to construct new dwellings. or remodel existing dwellings. within the allowable height limit without the approval of a variance for height. • The requested variance is of a greater magnitude than previously approved by the City on lots with similar topography. SUBJECT: The Hertz Corporotion 3955 Birch Street and 4000 Compus Drive • Use Permit No. 3227 Amended • ModificotionNo.4833 Request to permit an existing auto rental facility to expand its services to include an auto sales operation and its site to inlude an additional lot. The proposal also includes a Modification to the Zoning Code to allow a ground identification sign to encroach 9 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback along Campus Drive. Ms. Temple noted an error on the vicinity map included on page 2 of the staff report. The shaded area is intended to depict the project area. however. one of the five lots involved in the application is not shaded and that is the one that is labeled 4020. Additionally. the applicant expressed concern with the wording of condition 9 in its clarity. Staff suggests the words. "for rental or for sale" be removed from the condition because it could imply it was the rental or sale that is prohibited rather than the off site storage. Public comment was opened. Paul Higgnis. 5000 Campus Drive representing Tom Hogan. owner of the added parcel and Hertz. He noted that all of the parcels are ground leased by Hertz. There is a signed lease and part of the contract is that Mr. Hogan will remove the existing improvements. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit 3227A and Modification 4833 with the edition to condition nine. Ayes: Fuller. Ashley. Selich. Gifford. Kranzley Noes: None INDEX 0 Item No. 2 Use Permit No. 3227A' Modification No. 4833 Approved • Iy City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Avenue and Tustin Avenue from a Secondary Arterial to a Commuter Arterial. I Mr. Edmonston noted the additional information: • This has resulted in an o process that took place over two years. • No opposition from residents. • Orange County Transportation Authority guidelines have been and will continue to be adhered to. • There is no foreseeable need to widen this to a four -lane road within the next twenty or thirty year horizon. • There is now a means for the residents to have additional neighborhood traffic controls. Public comment was opened. Irene Dunlap, 2201 Santiago Drive - spoke in support of this process noting the quality of life, appreciates the hard work of both her neighbors and the staff. She questioned the category as a commuter roadway, is there anything else take place that is not obvious? Mr. Edmonston answered that it remains on the City and County Master Plans as an arterial highway, currently posted with weight restrictions. It is the Council's intention to minimize the use of that road. This change will make it easier for additional restrictions to be applied by'Council in the future. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to adopt Resolution No. 1498 recommending to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment 98 -3 (D) INDEX Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker \ . Abstain: None SUBJECT: R -A District Height Limits Item No. 6� • Amendment No. 887 A 887 An amendment to Section 20.65.040 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to Recommended place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District in the 32/50 Approval Foot Height Limitation Zone. Public comment was opened. • 23 i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Mr. Fleetwood Joyner. orchitect on o project of 2128 Meso Drive spoke in support of the scoff report. Public comment wos closed. Motion wos mode by Commissioner Kronzley to odopt Resolution No. 1499 recommending opprovol of Amendment 887 to the City Council. Ayes: Tucker. Ashley. Selich. Gifford. KronzJey and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller Abstoin: None US BJECT: Planning Commission Appointments to the Newport Center Planning Study Group Choirperson Selich stoted this is o subcommittee to oddress oil the issues thot hove been presented to the City Council of the joint meeting. He oppointed himself. Commissioners Kronzley and Gifford to work with scoff. They will then be coming bock-.,to the Plonning Commission with o recommendotion os to the opprooch on those items. ..4 SUBJECT: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Amendment No, 864 Proposed omendments to Chopter 15.40 of the Newport Beoch Municipol Code. Troffic Phosing Ordinonce. to provide thot circulotion system improvements required for o development ore roughly proportionol to thot project's impoct. to ollow the City Council..to exempt from improvements intersections thot meet criterio estoblished in the ordinonce. and to estoblish o threshold for troffic impocts thot require circulo'tion system improvements. Choirperson Selich noted thot with the obsence of Bob Burnhom and Shoron Wood thot the procedure for this item will be for the Commission to osk their questions of scoff: then testimony from the public which will be onswered of the next public meeting on this item. Commission inquiries or concerns: Mop showing intersections of or obove Clossificotions D - to be pre, Build out under present ordinonce identifying those intersections in of Clossificotion D - yes. os of o Troffic Anolysis Model doted 1996. Feosibility Study for improvements of deficient intersections with costs. 24 INDEX • I` Item No. 7 Approved Item No. 8 A 864 • u /G