Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - PA2015-120 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 3, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - (PA2015-120) 1608 West Ocean Front Appeal to Planning Commission APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeff and Holly Miller PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single-family residence. The applicant artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The applicant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. denying the applicant's Appeal to Planning Commission and upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade (Attachment No. PC 1). August 20, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission voted to continue the project to September 3, 2015, at the request of the applicant. Refer to the August 4, 2015, staff report packet and August 20, 2015, staff report packet, for the complete analysis and recommendation. Appeal Process In accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) of the Zoning Code, the Community Development Director issued a formal determination letter on August 6, 2015, (Attachment No. PC 2) and the applicant filed an appeal within 14 days of the Director's Determination on August 11, 2015 (Attachment No. PC 3). Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 3, 2015 Page 2 Public Notice Notice for the August 6, 2015, hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property, and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. This item was continued to a date certain (to August 20, 2015) in the Planning Commission minutes from August 6, 2015, to allow for the correct appeal procedures in accordance with the Zoning Code. At the August 20, 2015, meeting, the item was again continued to a date certain (to September 3, 2015) in the Planning Commission minutes from August 20, 2015, at the request of the project applicant. Prepared by: Submitted by: Oe .�. Mak a N va Br n a"Wisnesl4i, ICP, Deputy Director Associate Planner f GR/mkn ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal PC 2 Community Development Director's Determination PC 3 Applicant's Appeal Form Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO UTILIZE A HIGHER AVERAGE GRADE AND UPHOLDING THE AVERAGE GRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1608 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2015-120) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade was filed by Jeff and Holly Miller ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 1608 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 16, Section B, of Newport Beach, in conjunction with an approval in concept (AIC) application for the construction of a new single-family residence. 2. The Applicant has filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single-family residence. The Applicant desires to use a higher average grade than the grade elevations determined by the Community Development Director. The Applicant artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The Applicant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. 3. The subject property is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RT (Two-Unit Residential). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RT-D (Two Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was held on August 6, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. The Planning Commission voted to continue this item to August 20, 2015. 6. A public hearing was held on August 20, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. The Planning Commission voted to continue this item to September 3, 2015. Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 3 7. A public hearing was held on September 3, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In this case, the Planning Commission finds: 1. The Applicant's suggestion to utilize elevations following the artificial fill of the site is contrary to the definition of, "established grade," as identified in Section 20.70 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission does not consider the topographic conditions resulting from the artificial fill of the property to be a unique circumstance resulting to warrant approval for a higher average grade for purposes of determining height. The Planning Commission, in this case, determined that the average grade proposed by the Community Development Director is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). 2. The grades on adjacent properties are most representative of the existing grade elevations prior to disturbance and alteration on-site. Granting of the higher average grade would provide special privileges to the subject property that are not granted to similar residential properties in the vicinity. 3. The higher average grade for purposes of determining height as proposed by the Applicant is neither required by code nor necessary for the enjoyment of the property. As shown through previously approved building permits, the subject property can be designed to comply with the requirements of the NBMC and be used for the construction of a new single-family or two-unit residence. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies the appeal and upholds the grade establishment by the Community Development Director made on April 1, 2015 (PA2015-120). The Applicant shall utilize the average grade elevation of 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) for purposes of determining height at 1608 West Ocean Front. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 3 accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chair BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� Attachment No. PC 2 Community Development Director's Determination 9 �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� 01,1111111!!L 0 � 100 Civic Center Drive 0� Newport Beach,California 92660 (h 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment �'9C1fi0R"��4. P= August 6, 2015 Jeff and Holly Miller 1608 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 1608 West Ocean Front, AIC2015005 (PA2015-120) Director's Determination 2015-04: Grade Establishment Dear Mr. and Mrs. Miller, Staff has reviewed your submitted plans and has determined that the average grade for the purpose of measuring building height is 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum). This determination is based upon Municipal Code Section 20.30.050, Subsections A and B. Your request to use alternative elevation points has been considered pursuant to Section 20.30.050.0 (Establishment of Grade by Director). Based upon the topographic map, surrounding grades, the presence of retaining walls at or near the front and side property lines, and field verification by staff, the site has clearly been previously altered. Your request to use an average elevation of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) is based upon elevation points that are not consistent with Section 20.50.050, Subsection A and B, and the higher elevation will result in taller construction that would impede partial ocean views of adjoining properties, to their detriment. Therefore, your request does not meet the required findings of Section 20.30.050.0 and your request is hereby denied. Please revise your proposed drawings to reflect compliance with the average elevation of 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) or as an alternative, you can appeal the grade determination provided within this letter to the Planning Commission. Appeals must be filed in writing within 14 days following the date of this letter (before 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 19, 2015) and must be accompanied by a fee. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact Makana Nova, Associate Planner, at (949) 644-3249 or mnova(cDnewportbeachca.gov. "- kilrlyb Brandt, I Co unity Develop ent Director Attachments: Section 20.30.050 of the Zoning Code Exhibit"A" City exhibit depicting the staff determination of grade Exhibit"B"Applicant's requested grade exhibit Community Development Department �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Appeal Form �� QP �� ��P P�" O� �� �� \�� . tiwr1a ,a Appeal Application For©fficeUseOnly Date Appeal Filed: E- Community Development Department v ' Planning Division Fee Received: 1 100 Civic Center Drive 1 P.O. Box 1768 1LIF pRNl� Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Received by: (949)644-3204 Telephone 1(949)644-3229 Facsimile www.newportbeachca.aov Application to appeal the decision of the: ❑ Zoning Administrator ® Planning Director ❑ Hearing Officer ❑ Flood Plain Administrator ❑ Other Appellant Information: Name(s): Jeff and Holly Miller Add ress: P. O. Box 1096 City/State/Zip- Yorba Linda CA 92885-1096 Phone: 714-920-7470 Fax: Email. milleria3(a sbeglobal.net Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant: Jeff Miller Date of Decision: May 22, 2015 Project No. (PA): AIC2015005 Activity No.: First Review Site Address: 1608 West Oceanfront Boulevard Newport Beach CA Description: Zone R-2, Single Family Residence. Proposed for future new construction. Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): Received a request from Planning to substitute the Property's existing grade elevtions with the adjacent neighbors grade elevations. As originally noted in the Plan Check Correction No. AIC2015005 dated February 9,2015, please see the attached letter. _ This form was originally submitted 618115 and is now being re-submitted as requested by the Planning Department. Along with application, please submit the following: • Twelve (12) 11 x1 7 sets of the project plans • One set of mailing labels (on Avery 5960 labels) for all property owners within a 300-foot radius, excluding intervening right-of-wa s and=fDate: - Ao�JLJ�� ject site. Signature of Appellant: F:1UsersSCDDISharedlAdminTlanning Division'ApplicationsWppeallApplication.docx Updated 03!11113 15 Planning Commission - September 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120) September 3, 2015, Planning Commission Agenda Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher(jimmosher(cDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. MILLER RESIDENCE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT APPEAL (PA2015-120) Should the Resolution be revised to reference the August 6, 2015, "Director's Determination" and the August 11th appeal from it (current agenda packet Attachments PC 2 and PC 3) if that is the matter the Commission is now being asked to rule on? Although I agree completely with staff's conclusion, and although the appellant has been consistent in rejecting staff's interpretation of the established grade as 11.27' and insisting the correct value is 12.31', 1 have a little difficulty determining exactly when the determination that is the subject of the present hearing was made, and whether a written appeal was timely filed. The "Decision" part of the proposed Resolution of Denial refers to the Commission upholding "the grade establishment by the Community Development Director made on April 1, 2015 (PA2015-120)." April 1 actually seems to be a City "Notice Letter" (found in Attachment No. PC 6 to the August 6th agenda packet)) regarding the correction of building violations caused by improvements made in connection with filling of the ocean-facing portion of the lot. The letter, by Senior Planner Jaime Murillo mentions that since the unpermitted filling obliterated the previously existing grade, the elevation of neighboring lots would be used to establish grade unless the appellant could provide evidence of the actual pre-fill elevations. The April 1St letter does not actually mention the specific 11.27' determination, which the appellant seems to have first been notified of, at least in writing, in Item 71 of the "Residential Zoning Corrections" document prepared by Associate Planner Makana Nova and dated February 10, 2015 (found in Attachment No. PC 6 to the August 6th agenda packet). What purports to be the appellant's original written objection/appeal of the February 10, 2015, decision is a letter dated May 28, 2015 (found in Attachment No. PC 7 to the August 6th agenda packet), although handwritten page 5 of the August 6th staff report oddly refers to a "June 19, 2015" filing of appeal — that was not reproduced in the agenda packet, but both far beyond the 14 day window for filing appeals for a decision made in February. The appellant's May 28, 2015, letter, suggests the February 10th interpretation was reiterated orally at a May 22, 2015, meeting with City staff. Although the appeal/notification problem that necessitated the continuation of the August 6th hearing to August 20th has never been clearly explained, the present staff report adds to the above confusion by submitting, as Attachments PC 2 and PC 3, a new letter of determination on behalf of the Community Development Director dated August 6, 2015, and an appeal therefrom dated August 11, 2015, which itself says the original decision was made on May 22, 2015, and that it is a repeat of an appeal filed on June 8, 2015 (possibly a typo for "June 18" or possibly Planning Commission - September 3, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received September 3, 2015, PC agendaNffift? ReBidMceJ(Br&behEstablishmeotApprEVal (PA2015-120) the reference to a June 19 appeal in the August 6th staff report is a typo for"June 9"?), and it mentions being notified of staff's position in the "February 9, 2015" Plan Check Correction (apparently a typo for February 10). If there was an appeal form filed on June 8 or June 19 (the Planning Division's Case Log for PA2015-120 appears to confirm the opening appeal being filed on June 19th), or a written decision issued on May 22, they do not seem to have been reproduced in any of the staff reports. Since the August 6, 2015, letter is the only one clearly labeled as a "Director's Determination" it would seem like that is the one (rather than the April 1 letter) that should be referenced as being upheld in the Resolution of Denial. Although the appellant's August 11th form technically says it's staff's oral(?) statement of position on May 22nd that is being appealed, it's not clear that any of the decisions prior to August 6th, including that on May 22nd were appealed within the required 14 day window. I might note that I was unable to find any record of the staff actions on April 1, May 22 or August 6 in any of the weekly lists of"Administrative Approvals" which the Planning Division voluntarily (and helpfully) posts on-line. I guess a "determination" is not an approval, but it would seem of interest for the public to be able to see formal staff decisions on potentially controversial issues of all sorts.