Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - Troesh Residence - PA2015-122 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 8, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Troesh Residence - (PA2015-122) 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive • Modification No. MD2015-008 • Variance No. VA2015-003 APPLICANT: Jon and Elsa Troesh OWNER: Jon and Elsa Troesh PLANNER: Jason Van Patten, Assistant Planner (949) 644-3234, jvanpatten@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY In conjunction with the addition of a detached, 4,451-square-foot dwelling, the applicant requests the following: • Modification Permit— to allow an addition that exceeds 10 percent of the existing floor area on property with nonconforming parking. A separate detached dwelling fronts Catalina Drive and is nonconforming in parking due to the interior dimension of the two-car garage. • Variance — to allow a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed 42 inches in height within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The request is due to the existing topography and City standards for driveway design. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Modification No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003 (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 V� QP �� P �P Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Subject Property p J 10 w 1 i. GENERAL PLAN ZONING M - s r f - ~ ^i ^i a y M LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE RT Two Unit Residential R-2 Two-Unit Residential Single-unit dwelling NORTH RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) Single-unit dwelling Residential Detached SOUTH RS-D R-1 Single-unit dwelling EAST RT R-2 Single-unit dwelling WEST RT R-2 Single-unit dwelling 3 Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property is located in the community of Newport Heights. West Coast Highway is located to the south and Newport Boulevard to the west. The property is one of six through lots on the block that maintains access from both La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive. The general topography is steep, sloping from La Jolla Drive down to Catalina Drive with an approximate drop in elevation of 22 feet. The 6,156-square-foot site contains an existing 2,758-square-foot dwelling with attached two-car garage that maintains vehicular access from Catalina Drive. Background The site, originally developed in 1955 and later added to in 1987 and 2008, contains a two-level dwelling with two-car garage that fronts Catalina Drive. The addition in 1987 expanded the kitchen, family room, and a second floor bedroom, and the addition in 2008 expanded the kitchen and master bathroom. The garage measures 19 feet 3 inches wide by 21 feet 7 inches deep and was conforming at the time of original construction. However, the 2010 Zoning Code update expanded the minimum requirement to an interior width of 20 feet and depth of 20 feet. Therefore, the existing dwelling is now nonconforming in parking. The dwelling is also nonconforming in setbacks. The structure currently encroaches 5-3/4 inches into the 10-foot front setback adjacent to Catalina Drive and 6 inches into the 4-foot side setback (east side). Project Description The applicant proposes the addition of a detached, three-level 4,451-square-foot dwelling with two-car garage on the undeveloped southerly half of the property. Vehicular access would be taken via La Jolla Drive. The existing dwelling on the northerly half of the property would remain unchanged. However, due to the existing nonconforming parking, a modification permit is required for the proposed addition. The variance requested would allow a retaining wall (retaining fill beneath the driveway) and guardrail to exceed 42 inches in height within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The request is due to the sloping topography and the need to comply with City standards for driveway design. The maximum overall height of the retaining wall and guardrail is 8 feet 11 inches when measured from existing grade. The proposed dwelling will be constructed from a significantly lower elevation than the public street, which necessitates the height of the retaining wall and guardrail. Figure 1 depicts the proposal. L{' Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 4 Figure 1: Elevation w Z r� �t W SCOPE OF VARIANCE - CONCRETE CURB 125.00' 5' SETBACK 1 i tel' ;10 o GARAGE 124 O DRIVfiWAY BEYOND kn NO®BASE OF WALL RETAINING WALL _ ING NG 1 LINE OF EXISTING GRAD UNE OF NEW GRADE DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan and Zoning Code The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Two-Unit Residential (RT) and the Zoning Code designates the site as Two-Unit Residential (R-2). Both designations are intended to provide for two dwelling units such as duplexes or townhomes. The proposed project is consistent with these designations, and use of the property for residential dwellings would not change. The property is not located in the Coastal Zone. With the exception of the height of the retaining wall and guardrail, the proposed dwelling complies with all applicable development standards. This includes setback requirements, floor area limit, parking, and height. 6 Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 5 Table 1: Development Standards Standard Existing Proposed Setbacks Front (Catalina Drive) 10' 9'6-1/4" 74'8-1/2" Front (La Jolla Drive) 5' 74'5-1/2" 5' Side (east) 4' 3'6" 4'1" Side west 4' 4'8" 4'1" Floor Area Limit 9,092 sq. ft. 2,758 sq. ft. 4,451 sq. ft. maximum (7,209 sq. ft. total on lot w/ existing) Parking 2 spaces per unit 2 spaces in a 2 spaces in a 20' W x 20' D garage garage minimum interior 19'3" W x 217' D 20' W x 20' D interior interior Height 24' (flat roof) 21'6-1/2" to roof 23'11" top of 29' (pitched roof) ridge trellis post 28'9" to roof ridge Modification Permit Pursuant to Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking), a residential development with nonconforming parking is limited to an addition up to 10 percent of the existing floor area within a 10-year period. Given the proposed dwelling (southerly half) is located on the same property as the nonconforming dwelling (northerly half), the additional development is subject to these provisions. In this case, 10 percent of the existing 2,758-square-foot dwelling is 275 square feet. A larger addition may be allowed subject to the approval of a modification permit. Pursuant to Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a modification permit authorizing the proposed 4,451-square-foot addition (161 percent): 1. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood; 2. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s) of the property and/or structure, and/or characteristics of the use; Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 6 3. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; 4. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public; and 5. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. A modification permit is intended to provide relief from specified development standards of the Zoning Code when so doing is consistent with the purposes of this Code and the General Plan, and does not negatively impact the community at large or in the neighborhood of the specified development. Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Modification Permit as demonstrated in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The existing dwelling fronting Catalina Drive currently provides two usable parking spaces in a garage that are adequate in size to accommodate two vehicles. The garage complied with requirements at the time of original construction (one garage space not less than 8 feet wide by 20 feet deep), but due to amendments to the Zoning Code, is now substandard in width by 9 inches (19 feet 3 inches) and considered nonconforming. Requiring the applicant to provide conforming dimensions would result in significant alterations to the interior design of the structure given the location of the garage. Expanding the garage to the west requires reconstruction of the stair leading to the second floor and a reconfiguration of the floor plan to accommodate the revised design. Expanding the garage to the east is not feasible without encroaching further into the required 4-foot side setback. Furthermore, the project characteristics are unique relative to a typical duplex in that the proposed second dwelling will be both physically and vertically separated from the existing dwelling due to the topography of the lot. Due to the separation of the dwellings and secondary vehicular access that is available from Catalina Drive, construction of the proposed dwelling does not result in any alterations to the existing dwelling. Considering the project characteristics and practical challenges described, approval of the Modification Permit enables the applicant to continue the use of the existing two-car garage and will allow for the proposed dwelling. In addition, the existing garage has not proven detrimental to the occupants or neighbors of the dwelling limiting any concerns regarding its continued use. Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 7 Variance A wall or guardrail, solid or otherwise may not exceed 42 inches in height within a front setback area pursuant to Table 3-1 of Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). The height is measured from the existing grade prior to construction at the location where the work occurs. The proposed retaining wall and guardrail are located within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The overall height of the retaining wall and guardrail ranges between 6 feet 9 inches and 8 feet 11 inches when measured from existing grade. The proposed height is a result of the existing topography and the need to comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C for driveway design. The City Standard regulates driveway design and dictates slope and change in grade to ensure that a vehicle can safely access a garage from a public street. The standards require that the driveway profile ascend a minimum of six inches before descending towards the garage. It further specifies a maximum slope of 15 percent and maximum change in grade elevation of 11 percent across 5-foot intervals. Using the City Standard, the proposed driveway profile is at the minimum elevation achievable as it passes through the 5-foot front setback area and does not allow for a shorter retaining wall. Pursuant to Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a variance: 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; 3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; 5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and 8 Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 8 6. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Variance as demonstrated in the draft Resolution. Providing vehicular access to the proposed dwelling from La Jolla Drive is not feasible without a retaining wall and guardrail that exceed 42 inches in height within the front setback area. Based on an approximate drop in elevation of 6 feet between the top of curb and the 5-foot setback line, a steeper driveway profile would not meet the City Standard for design, and would preclude vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. The guardrail is necessary for safety to prevent a fall as required by the California Building Code. Allowing the retaining wall and guardrail at the proposed elevations preserves the ability to provide vehicular access from La Jolla Drive, which is a significant property right and consistent with properties in the vicinity. In addition, the improvements are designed to minimize visual impacts to neighboring properties. The retaining wall will not extend above the top of the curb at the street, and the guardrail provides an open design to allow the passage of air and light and to reduce any concerns regarding aesthetics. The height of the guardrail would be consistent with the height of accessory structures typically visible in front yard areas. Public Correspondence Staff received two letters in opposition concerning potential impacts to parking and traffic on La Jolla Drive. These letters are provided as Attachment No. PC 5. The City's Traffic Engineer notes the additional traffic generated by a single dwelling is minimal (approximately 10 average daily trips) when spread out over the day. Furthermore, the proposed access to the new dwelling is consistent with many other properties nearby that currently have garages and driveways that take access from La Jolla Drive. Alternatives Staff recommends approval as proposed based on the required findings provided. The following alternative actions are available for the Commission: 1. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes to the project design that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff would return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Should the Planning Commission determine that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2). Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 9 Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. The proposed project involves the addition of a dwelling on property that is currently developed with a dwelling in a Two-Unit Residential Zoning District. Public Notice Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of- way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: n ,� Ja n Van Patten, Assistant Planner ren"Wisnesik ICP, Deputy Director i ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft resolution to approve PC 2 Draft resolution to deny PC 3 Applicant's project descriptions PC 4 Site photographs PC 5 Public correspondence PC 6 Project plans 10 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution to Approve 11 V� QP �� P �P 12 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2015-008 AND VARIANCE NO. VA2015-003 TO ADD A 4,451-SQUARE-FOOT DWELLING ON PROPERTY WITH NONCONFORMING PARKING AND TO ALLOW A RETAINING WALL AND GUARDRAIL TO EXCEED 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT WITHIN A FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 336 CATALINA DRIVE AND 333 LA JOLLA DRIVE (PA2015-122) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Jon and Elsa Troesh, property owners, with respect to property located at 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive, and legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 444 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 19, Page 29 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county requesting approval of a modification permit and variance. 2. The applicant proposes the addition of a detached, 4,451-square-foot dwelling fronting La Jolla Drive and requests a modification permit and variance. The modification permit allows an addition on property with nonconforming parking that exceeds 10 percent of the existing floor area developed on site. A separate detached dwelling fronts Catalina Drive and is nonconforming in parking due to the interior dimension of the garage. The existing dwelling would remain unchanged. The variance allows a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed 42 inches in height within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The overall height of the retaining wall and guardrail ranges between 6 feet 9 inches and 8 feet 11 inches when measured from existing grade. 3. The subject property is located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two-Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on October 8, 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. 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 11 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15303, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2. Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. The proposed project involves the addition of a dwelling on property that is currently developed with a dwelling in a Two-Unit Residential Zoning District. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Modification Permit Finding: A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The neighborhood is generally comprised of a development pattern of single-unit and two-unit dwellings. The request to allow the addition of a detached dwelling on property developed with a dwelling will be compatible with nearby properties that consist of two dwelling units. 2. With the exception of the retaining wall and guardrail, the proposed dwelling complies with all applicable development standards. This includes setback requirements, floor area limit, parking, and height. 3. The proposed multiple-level dwelling with decks will be compatible in bulk and scale with others in the Newport Heights Community that were similarly designed with multiple levels and decks. 4. The proposed dwelling fronting La Jolla Drive will be entirely detached from the existing dwelling fronting Catalina Drive, will not intensify or alter the existing nonconformities on site, and will provide a code compliant two-car garage. 03-03-2015 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 11 Finding: B. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s) of the property and/or structure, and/or characteristics of the use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The site, originally developed in 1955 and later added to in 1987 and 2008 contains a 2,758-square-foot dwelling with attached two-car garage. The garage measuring 19 feet 3 inches wide and 21 feet 7 inches deep complied with requirements at the time of original construction (one garage space not less than 8 feet wide by 20 feet deep). However, due to amendments to the Zoning Code, the existing dwelling is now nonconforming in parking because it does not provide a minimum interior width of 20 feet and depth of 20 feet. 2. The existing two-level dwelling and garage encroaches six inches into the side setback. Therefore, expanding the garage to a minimum width of 20 feet is not feasible without physically altering the interior of the floor plan at both levels or encroaching further into the required side setback. The alterations would include reconfiguring the stairwell leading to the second floor, relocating an adjacent powder room, and modifying the front entrance to the dwelling. 3. The existing dwelling is located on the northerly half of a through lot, with access from both La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive. Unlike a typical duplex, the project characteristics are unique in that it consists of the development a second detached dwelling unit that will be both physically and vertically separated due to the topography of the lot. Due to the separation of the dwellings and secondary vehicular access that is available from Catalina Drive, construction of the proposed second dwelling will not require any alterations to the existing dwelling. 4. The granting of the Modification Permit is necessary to allow the construction of a second detached dwelling on property that is within a Zoning District that permits two dwelling units. Approval would allow improvements to a site that complied with parking standards in effect at the time of original construction and that are currently adequate in size for the parking of two vehicles. Finding: C. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The intent is to construct a detached dwelling without altering the existing dwelling. Requiring the nonconforming garage to provide a compliant width would result in significant alterations to the interior design of the existing detached dwelling. 03-03-2015 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##### Page 4 of 11 Expanding the garage to the west requires reconstruction of the stair leading to the second floor and a reconfiguration of the floor plan to accommodate the revised design. Expanding the garage to the east is not feasible without further encroaching into the required side setback. 2. The proposed dwelling will have no impact on the existing dwelling and will be located on the southerly half of the property. Strict application of the Zoning Code would require that the existing garage width be expanded 9 inches, resulting in significant physical improvements to an entirely separate dwelling unit. 3. The existing garage provides two useable spaces, thereby fulfilling the intent of the Zoning Code by providing adequate parking on site. Approval of the Modification Permit allows the applicant to continue the use of the existing two-car garage, which has not proven detrimental to the occupants or neighbors of the dwelling and will allow for the proposed dwelling. Finding: D. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The alternative would require that the applicant widen the existing nonconforming garage 9 inches to comply with the Zoning Code resulting in unreasonable and unnecessary expenses. Expanding the garage towards the interior of the property requires significant alterations to interior living area, which is detrimental to the applicant. Expanding the width of the garage further into the required 4-foot side setback is not feasible without a variance, may limit access through the side yard, and places the structure closer to the adjacent property owner. 2. The other alternative is to reduce the size of the addition to not more than ten (10) percent of the floor area of the existing 2,758-square-foot structure (275 square feet maximum) and comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Given the proposal is to add a detached dwelling, a reduction in size renders the project infeasible and does not meet the objectives of the applicant. 3. The existing nonconforming garage has not proven to be detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, neighborhood, or City. Approval of the modification permit would allow the existing garage to remain unchanged and provides for the construction of a dwelling that complies with setback, height, floor area, and parking requirements. 03-03-2015 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 of 11 Finding: E. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed dwelling will front La Jolla Drive, will maintain a minimum distance of five feet from the front property line, four feet from neighboring properties, and will provide adequate protection for light, air, and privacy. The addition of a second dwelling unit on the property will not preclude access to the existing dwelling that fronts Catalina Drive and will be consistent in scale with other dwellings in the neighborhood that have multiple floors. 2. The existing nonconforming garage has not proven to be detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, neighborhood, or City and is adequate in width to park two vehicles. 3. The proposed dwelling will be located on property that allows for two dwellings and will not result a density or intensity that is inconsistent with the Zoning Code. 4. As conditioned, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits in accordance with the Building Code and other applicable Codes. Variance Finding: F. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property is located within the Two-Unit Residential Zoning District, which includes several properties along Catalina Drive and La Jolla Drive. The steep topography and design of the subdivision are generally unique relative to a majority of properties in the vicinity under the same zoning district. The site is one of six (6) through lots that slope from La Jolla Drive down to Catalina Drive with an approximate drop in elevation of 22 feet. Many of the properties nearby in the same zoning district are relatively flat in topography and are not through lots. 03-03-2015 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 6 of 11 2. The drop in elevation between La Jolla Drive and the front setback line is approximately 6 feet, which generally does not apply to nearby properties in the same zoning district. Finding: G. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property currently enjoys the right to build a structure within five feet of the front property line as well as take vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. Providing vehicular access is not feasible without a retaining wall and guardrail that exceed 42 inches in height within the front setback due to the existing topography and City standards for driveway design. The area at which the proposed dwelling will be constructed is at a significantly lower elevation than the public street. The driveway must also comply with a City standard that dictates slope and change in grade of driveways. Using the City Standard, the proposed driveway profile is at the minimum elevation achievable as it passes through the 5-foot front setback area and does not allow for a shorter retaining wall. The retaining wall ranges between 3 feet 9 inches and 5 feet 11 inches in height and would not exceed the top of curb elevation along La Jolla Drive. The guardrail located directly above the retaining wall extends 33 inches above the top of the curb elevation at the street. 2. Without approval of the variance, vehicular access from La Jolla Drive is not feasible, which is a typical right of other properties in the R-2 zone. 3. Strict application of the Zoning Code would require that the proposed dwelling take access from Catalina Drive. Requiring access from Catalina Drive would severely impact the existing dwelling and deprive the property owner of any ability to take access from La Jolla Drive. Finding: H. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The granting of the variance is necessary to preserve the ability to provide vehicular access from La Jolla Drive, similar to other properties fronting the street. 2. The applicant presently has the right to develop two dwelling units on the property and may provide access from both Catalina Drive and La Jolla Drive. Providing separate access for the enjoyment and use of each dwelling unit is a significant property right. 03-03-2015 TR Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 7 of 11 Without the variance, the existing dwelling would need to be significantly altered to provide additional driveway access from Catalina Drive. Finding: 1. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The granting of the variance allows the property owner to maintain parity with properties in the vicinity that maintain vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. La Jolla Drive is an existing street accessible from Cliff Drive and Beacon Street and is enjoyed by adjacent residential properties. The granting of the variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Finding: I Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 . The retaining wall will not be detrimental or constitute a hazard to persons residing in the neighborhood because it will not extend above the top of the curb elevation at the street. There will be no visual impact created by the improvements. 2. The guardrail located directly above the retaining wall extends 36 inches in height, consistent with the height limit of accessory structures typically visible in front yard areas. The guardrail is a requirement of the California Building Code due to the drop in elevation between the driveway and the side yard. The guardrail is at a minimum height and is a measure of safety to prevent a fall. The guardrail has an open design to allow the passage of air and light, and will serve to benefit the general welfare of persons residing on the property and in the neighborhood. Finding: K. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. 03-03-2015 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 8 of 11 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property Two-Unit Residential (RT). The RT land use designation is intended to provide for a range of two-family residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes. 2. The granting of the variance would allow a retaining wall and guardrail associated with the addition of a detached dwelling. The proposed dwelling is allowed within the RT land use designation and R-2 Zoning District. 3. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 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 accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 9 of 11 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING DIVISION 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003 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 project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 5. Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the retaining wall and guardrail and shall comply with traffic safety visibility requirements of the Zoning Code. 6. This Modification Permit and Variance may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 8. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or holidays. 9. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Troesh Residence including, but not limited to, 03-03-2015 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 10 of 11 MD2015-008 and VA2015-003. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. FIRE DEPARTMENT 10. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be required for all new construction. The sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL certified alarm service company. 11. The proposed structure must be within 400 feet of a fire hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the structure. BUILDING DIVISION 12. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 13. The driveway profile shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C with a maximum slope of 15 percent and a maximum grade change of 11 percent with a minimum 5- foot interval. 14. Minor grading is permitted within the La Jolla Drive public right-of-way. The extent of proposed grading shall not project past the projection of the side property line and shall not impact the adjacent neighbors. 15. No structural encroachments are permitted within the La Jolla Drive public right-of-way including but not limited to, walls, retaining walls, tie-backs, caissons, etc. 16. Two new 48 inch box street trees shall be installed within the La Jolla Drive public right-of-way consistent with Council Policy G-6 and subject to final approval by the Municipal Operations Department. 17. Each unit shall be served by separate water and sewer services. Each shall be installed per the applicable City Standard. 18. The brick pavers and brick wall with fence shall be removed from the Catalina Drive public right-of-way and replaced with a new sidewalk along the Catalina Drive frontage per City Standard STD-180-L. 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 11 of 11 19. The driveway along La Jolla Drive shall be installed per City Standard STD-162-L. The driveway along Catalina Drive shall be reconstructed per City Standard STD-162-L. 03-03-2015 23 V� QP �� P �P 24 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution to Deny 25 V� QP �� P �P 20 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2015-008 AND VARIANCE NO. VA2015-003 TO ADD A 4,451-SQUARE-FOOT DWELLING ON PROPERTY WITH NONCONFORMING PARKING AND TO ALLOW A RETAINING WALL AND GUARDRAIL TO EXCEED 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT WITHIN A FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 336 CATALINA DRIVE AND 333 LA JOLLA DRIVE (PA2015-122) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Jon and Elsa Troesh, property owners, with respect to property located at 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive, and legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 444 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 19, Page 29 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county requesting approval of a modification permit and variance. 2. The applicant proposes the addition of a detached, 4,451-square-foot dwelling fronting La Jolla Drive and requests a modification permit and variance. The modification permit allows an addition on property with nonconforming parking that exceeds 10 percent of the existing floor area developed on site. A separate detached dwelling fronts Catalina Drive and is nonconforming in parking due to the interior dimension of the garage. The existing dwelling would remain unchanged. The variance allows a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed 42 inches in height within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The overall height of the retaining wall and guardrail ranges between 6 feet 9 inches and 8 feet 11 inches when measured from existing grade. 3. The subject property is located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two-Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on October 8, 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. 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 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. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The Planning Commission may approve a modification permit and variance only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and 20.52.090 (Variances). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The application for a 4,451-square-foot addition and a driveway and guardrail that exceed the height limit in a front setback are not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code, and the findings required by Section 20.52.020 and 20.52.090 are not supported in this case. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community. 2. The size of the addition and the height of the driveway and guardrail are not compatible with existing development in the vicinity. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10-15-2013 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 10-15-2013 �J V� QP �� P �P �o Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Project Descriptions SI V� QP �� P �P 32 6/24/2015 Craig Smith C Smith Architects Inc 1041 W. 18�St.,Suite A-208 Costa Mesa,CA. 92627 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Subject: Modification Permit—Project Description and Justification Troesh Residence—333 La Jolla Drive Plan Check No.: 2490-2014 To Whom it May Concern, The project is a new residence and attached garage on an R-2 lot with an existing residence to remain. The existing lot is 6,156 sf.The existing residence is two story, 2,308 sf habitable with a 450 sf attached garage.The new proposed residence is 3,920 sf habitable with a 531 sf attached garage. We are asking for a modification permit due to the existing garage,existing encroachment into front setback and existing encroachment into the east side setback. No work is being done to the existing residence. The reason is that the existing garage SFR has nonconforming parking(19'-3" wide x 21'-7" deep),less than 20'x 20'interior required.Per NBMC 20.38.060 an addition to a property is limited 10%of existing floor area. To make the garage compliant would require moving the existing stair and powder room.This would involve a great bit of structural modifications on both floors of the residence. 33 C Smith Architects Inc The front setback is 10'-0" and the existing residence is 9'-61/4"from the property line. The east side setback is 4'-0"and the existing side setback at the rear of the residence is T-6" from the property line,based on the survey.See 1/ALI.Note that the existing residence was not built parallel to the property line. E.Required Findings.The Zoning Administrator may approve or conditionally approve a modification permit if,on the basis of the application,materials,plans, and testimony(orally and/or in writing) submitted,the Zoning Administrator first finds all of the following: 1.The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood; The requested modification is compatible with the existing neighborhood. 2.The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s)of the property and/or structure, and/or characteristics of the use; The width of the existing garage cannot meet the required minimum width of 20'-0"because the east wall of the garage is at the set back and the west wall of the garage parallels the stairs to the second floor. 3.The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; The physical difficulties are as explained in the response#2 above. 4.There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants,the neighborhood,or to the general public; and Due to the existing garage being at the set back on the east wall and the west wall of the garage parallels the stairs to the second floor, the cost and impact to the occupants would be extreme. 5.The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property,nearby properties,the neighborhood,or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. The existing non-conforming issues within the existing residence would not be detrimental to public health,safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property,nearby properties, the neighborhood,or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. Craig Smith •2 S4 C Smith Architects Inc Please let me know if you need additional information for this request. Sincerely, Craig Smith President,Architect C 20154 C Smith Architects Inc Craig Smith •3 35 6/24/2015 Craig Smith C Smith Architects Inc 1041 W. 18�St.,Suite A-208 Costa Mesa,CA. 92627 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Subject: Variance Request—Project Description and Justification Troesh Residence—333 La Jolla Drive Plan Check No.: 2490-2014 To Whom it May Concern, The project is a new residence and attached garage on an R-2 lot with an existing residence to remain. We are asking for a variance for the new driveway, sidewalk/stair access from the driveway to the front entry door and associated retaining wall that are over the 42 inch height limit in the front setback. The driveway ramp has been designed as required per the City s standard plan STD-160-L-C and is designed at the maximum allowed.The existing topography does not allow for the entrance into the garage as required by city standards. The garage finished floor elevation was set starting from the street curb and working down slope to the minimum required five foot setback.Lowering the garage in order to be compliant to the 42" maximum retaining wall height was not feasible because of the maximum slope requirements of STD-160-L-C. The driveway requires a retaining wall at the east side.We have included a guardrail at the east side of the driveway for safety.The top of the guardrail is 42 inches above the driveway surface and extends from the building to the property line. 36 C Smith Architects Inc 0 so F.Findings and Decision. The review authority may approve or conditionally approve a variance only after first making all of the following findings: 1.There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location,shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features)that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. The topography does not allow for the entrance into the garage as required by city standards. The overall height is greater than the allowed height of 42"within the front setback. The 42"height also restricts the entrance into the front entry door. 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; Several of the existing properties along La Jolla Drive do not currently meet the existing zoning requirements. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties along La Jolla Drive. 3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties along La Jolla Drive. 4.Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district based on the existing properties. 5.Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest,safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City,nor endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest,safety, o or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood And 6. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict Granting of the variance will not be in conflict based on other existing conditions along La Jolla Drive. Craig Smith •2 37 C Smith Architects Inc 0 so Please let me know if you need additional information for this request. Sincerely � Craig Smith President,Architect C 20154 C Smith Architects Inc Craig Smith •3 3g Attachment No. PC 4 Site Photographs 3°) V� QP �� P �P -y-o r l.Tt `1' x SK Vw WN } d ,,a cl , 1 b 1 t t 4 f ..IF ] _`•Yy i'1. rii'i f l'- ti`P M.C. 4.} �•t.��rl� . P 4 J �' y Existing access from La Jolla 74 jwt vg!�114K d � 1 r�, u 1. 39 , r, r y� Attachment No. PC 5 Public Correspondence 43 V� QP �� P �P 44 Woodco Investment Company, Inc. Kwvw.woodcoinvxom ,,,SCEIVED @Y COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2015 SEP 11 2015 JASON VAN PATTEN, ASST, PLANNER op)- p DEVELOPMENT GZ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOPIVEWpoakl P. O. Box 1768 FILE PA 2015 122 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF . 92658 8915 RE: 336 CATALINA AND 333 LA JOLLA TROESH I 'M NOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGE RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY BEHIND 336 CATALINA IN THAT IT APPEARS THAT WE'VE HAD DEVELOPMENT ALREADY AND THE PARKING DOES NOT SEEM TO BE IN CONFORMITY OR ADEQUATE. LA JOLLA AT THAT AREA IS 14ARROWER THAN MOST ALLEYS AND IS BARELY A SINGLE LANE CAR STREET, A HUGE RESIDENCE THAT WILL NEED PARKING ON A NARROW 'ALLEYWAY' SEEMS FOOLISH , WE OWN ABOUT 3 PROPERTIES ON CATALINA, I FEEL THAT ONCE THE PARKING PROBLEM IS SOLVED ON THE CATALINA SIDE IT THEN COULD BE PETITIONED FOR , SET OUR VOTE AS TO A "NO" . -YeRYT LY YOURS, Wciu6RbW LEWIS 3740 Campus Drive • Suite #100 • Newport Beach, CA 92660-2639 • TEL: (949) 756-8557 • FAX: (9833-0153 pECE1VFO 6�1, CDMMUAII7,e Date:September 13,2015 SEP 16 2015 To City of Newport Beach n From:Neighbors on and around La Jolla Dr,Newport Beach CA 92663 'tom DEVEI CEMENT OA- Referencing: Project#PA2015-122 4,�WPCFl1 Location.336 Catalina Drive We,the undersigned,are in receipt of a certain Notice of Public Hearing mailed on September 5, 2015,indicating that owners Jon and Elsa Troesh have applied for a Modification Permit and Variance with the City of Newport Beach to benefit their property on 336 Catalina Drive.We understand this matter will be heard during a public hearing on September 17,2015. Let itbe known that we are completely ptigainst amending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add non-conforming floor area and driveway that will have an serious impact on traffic,safety and parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Dr is a very narrow street(only 19'10"feet wide) which only allows for parking on one side of the street and only one lane Is accessible to drive In going both directions. Its parking capacity already exceeds its maximum with some residents forced to park off La Jolla Dr.For the City to allow a new dwelling by expanding home on a completely different street that results in a significant negative impact on a second street(which doesn't currently hold an address on La Jolla Dr),is unacceptable. We would not be adverse for them to add additional square footage on their existing property,which has access from their street(Catalina),but It Is the added burden to La Jolla Dr that we are against. Sincerely, 1. -_79H'k oGBu /// Print Name ` Si ature Som fsga\-6,� 3 Addr/ss z.L�`Z4 v/t,✓�.v�.n _ Print Name Sig ure Address 3. O L 611'1, vn- PrintName Signature 11 U e 4 Address 4.� Print Nage signht -e JA . 1/-d LA 12 aL, N r� I—LL'Y L- l�l�to'3 Address 40 5. beg EFNSolJ :1�Y����- — Print Name Signature 303 /V .K. . (- ciQ U,3 Address Print Name 1 Sig r Address Print Name _ Signat e 9-2 0 LA-���I(ti 21P .3 Address B. E D Pa r I r- �( Print Name Signature SSG L- J6ll (,,- T) ` Z- A � Address 9, SGDTT �A �'REr�-tea- , Print Name Signat6rY 7 3 `13 sAye. � zx,K 5 Address )) / 10. Print Name C,fSignature Address 11. m�4p-v �+e Print Name _ Signature Address Date:September 13,2015 To City of Newport Beach From:Neighbors on and around La Jolla Dr,Newport Beach CA 92663 Referencing:Project#PA2015-122 Location:336 Catalina Drive We,the undersigned,are in receipt of a certain Notice of Public Hearing mailed on September 5, 2015,Indicating that owners Jon and Elsa Troesh have applied fora Modification Permit and Variance with the City of Newport Beach to benefit their property on 336 Catalina Drive.We understand this matter will be heard during a public hearing on September 17,2015. Let it be known that we are completely against amending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add non-conforming floor area and driveway that will have an serious impact on traffic,safety and parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Dr is a very narrow street(only 19'10"feet wide)which only allows for parking on one side of the street and only one lane is accessible to drive in going both directions. Its parking capacity already exceeds its maximum with some residents forced to park off La Jolla Dr.For the City to allow a new dwelling by expanding a home on a completely different street that results in a significant negative impact on a second street(which doesn't currently hold an address on La Jolla Dr),Is unacceptable. We would not be adverse for them to add additional square footage on their existing property,which has access from their street(Catalina),but it is the added burden to La Jolla Dr that we are against. Sincerely, 1. �� Print Name Signature Address /� f�, 2. CQ r e,. 4J O Y 'Gt N �Gf�Gt/1 !d(� Print Name I Signature y01 SRh& Qwa Qye. X.ew4e1f A.eaCh 9z4e6, 3 Address 3. Print Name Signature Address 4. Print Name Signature Address 42 Attachment No. PC 6 Project Plans 49 V� QP �� P �P �o PP2o15�t22INT11I PL B-Pm^b Plaw TROFSH RESIDENCE 333 LA J0«A DRIVE NEWPORT BEACh , CA. . .. ABBREVIATIONS TYPICAL SYSMBOLS SMOKE[DETECTOR VOTES cENErAL NOTES VICINITYMAP 5HEETINDEX V .c+ m NMF" _AT, CA 8 E.ro>�. n ELL PPA ® (� I .� ' .x ,.�IIATANNA LEI x.,,_ � � . x —A-1 .o.kxv Q _� ,T wD —I', P__ NPLANDITA,­IN III A MANIN111 In—IIDI 1—1-1 TILTED ILDITTE,I I III TEND I NE.—DA,111 } ALIITINI W a as w -.r wT^`^"-.°. CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM NOTES: u.,r�, .<+x.Taw..� CODES .E Z AN, IT O To ;' W 1 11 E7�. INTA.,n,"PECIELLIEVATELITTIALLEALLEATTEA —.IT —1 E__I ALINE,11— A.—ADD x: a;uw,,.9 121 NEE VII I—I DATE I INIAN TI w�,w. tot. 1.11 ITATNEEN 11 LITIDETATLE-1-AND-1 ll III ITTIAll cy W ^^ WINDOW NOBS: _ .;Tuwox xr. CITY GENERAL VOTES —TI—PITELCID11- ALIALTLIENTLY1'I ITEIIT,I'll AI EaxrsA .x �. sreN.ww.s+s Z u T ease - „T. �� FIT DETATI,_ ELECTRICAL NOTES a�,.���In' s�. CONTACTS C IND,-T vs.NAxrT.x .,..$M,^„ Tr"...M ,s...,.�'...ro. I ED o.Na^.To. ADDITIONAL GENERAL NOTES sT°r... En—v..u.r ZME,rE . 5 x.,r..M A Tw° 1A x —1. NED-1 HETI rc-mEIA— =I s� I'll ia"v �A--some „s.xx..T._Txti.E L Tti,� _�� `A_-5-51v:ay.. eNn,—,wwMm—vx _ET,,,,E,T„, III,,,,us E_ — :.T... ,NSE,as nll„ DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: GENERAL INFORMATION EIDD �'ivsa.u.�v irornv. , To,Ts i:..,._s, ...t s.., E .zEe-�.w TS .Ell Tw.T., DEA Tr.wa°�M III PA III InAt FATLEx CE ITT IT,!­­LILEAPE ISTALL w_n„s.. rcIDAIIwo`�Trc."..a s, ._as:-.Ls. s..A.-w. FIRESPRINKLERS: e e ALI In zsw_w A, �..� +.x PC _ TEPID� To..v.�szacu ATsn.. 9 9M NA I—E—CANTLETITAPINEA—AADA—PATANIEL DV,<.,.,I.w.1111I } ! as inn Eln,In I,DLEATEE-5 I—AIDATTAIDATELLAIIIIATIAT 'Ll, 'LEADT x - _ WIN IDACs.s a'm S4E2T .IA.axvvnlr'.nn_a[.. TIIvDF% ILTAI 'C",NOTVS T ANDAIDIA-11 IIIII"I"'A' _11111711 su...xrc.s .vy.�.w:7.c'.T .awya. I.O PAA15"122 A�h—t PLS-PrGatl Platy r_ T..,. •_` __ _ a __ _Z______ _�r•�_eaa� �� �J. RM W Lu IE r. r_R, ..._. .it LLJ W CIN OF NEWPORT BEACH-CAL GREEN RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS CIN OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS g SCALE:N.TS. 5CN.E NTS. �� SEWF.AtIBFM iy-y RFSbEMW:. I I NOTIGE REGARDING CONDOMINIUMS TV SVA.E'.NT5. 5>L PP2o15t22 n,PLB-P,&Pl— FLOOR AREA LIMIT GENERAL INFORMATION IT w� I I I — L - CA TALINA DR. v...°w _ - u I eeliovooec=vc,.wow.ovooeevoveooveoevooevoro rc: m=ccs LL I M4 s CL BUILDING SUMMARY(55) p e IT PP x .: r. "'^ v l00000<<00000 o 0 000000 eeee=______ .rsg..3: I ro . o h, T Auer Z DY D -Hc ap `� •_ fi3LLJ LL . R z / I GROUND ELEVAi ION TOABOVE STRUCTURE �'� � I�"�t3f" �"' LU 7 o e�x a� r o GROUND ELEVA`lION TO S,RUCTURE ABOVE TIEE {"' µ;•. -�> �` e ESEES c ® P. .°.� .� ., e .. ere=,nn cereaN.uwv LA JOLLA DR. - x.L. M .,: .� 23, ROOF OVERLAY FOR BUILDING TO (E)GROUND EL-EVATIONS m< ns V c Y _ SRE PWN su,e.v_ �°� i TM SGA.,/6":PO - SI VC:Ii-CE _ L 2 1 �� PA2ofst22 t PL B-P,&Plaw B .f� 5R �4 i r��9, % 0 EAST ELEVATION '-"'� uA"`�� '°-0 a SOUTH ELEVATION sc+"'" '1-0 � BGLE118-1-0 - ECALE,V5'=1'-O' r 5c w a LLL 2 € v _ LLJ _ S Z LLI . B aP.'.e & e' ?a 3 WEST ELEVATION �_,„a -o Al R R SEE SHEET TI.2 FOR ELEVATIONS AT ACTUAL RIDGES AND HIGH POINTS. SEE A3.I ANDA3.2 FOR FLOOR HEIGHT ELEVATION5 _ �x-Ano�+_roa -ssnausnxe cmoe v�=_Ar_rz.�nv sx> NORTH ELEVATION s..Axava - -o TM 3 I 1 54 PP2615122 t PL B-P,&Plaw Hn6RA3L � _ 4aBITABIE ril S�A�= SGKE 1 590FS 9� V03B9 <sn„�lii�w�. 3 Op DELK O71 V. 0 61.69 G 3E.1a YGT. Ejd32 rt1 TOT. 1,7 S2C O Sh Q ® ® yyl 1,183 i L OP 3366 O � TGT. 23M EO. - 26 Os --TAR > Fl e 'v U-) - Z v c w 5ECOND FLOOR PLAN LOWER LEVEL FLOOR?LAN /1 € - SCALE 1/6"=1'O' a ryAE:VL=i.g V) w PABITAB's E 4ABiTABLE 5-AL- 9GALE S Z OO 4133 - OL CELK - O 2.i.0 LL) ® i39.00 O 531.95 O 4 TGT. 1°5053 8 OG tC-C-I 3 so O161 <raM ON 319.E-0 8 0 _ _ DECK O 1a,d3 0 665.23 TDT. i.8a33 8 O - O 2C 90 1235 TGT, 69212 6A2K; 2-1 O 391 dl p e �$ SOK _ VSf. 530.36 8& e O O GA2A3E 30. 531 DELK 16335 H _ C L n e iG'. 16559 � �CIIE 6T ` O GA.OE I:nS I THIRD FLOOR PLANFIRST FLOOR?LAbP SCPLE1/4"_t'O (DII SCALE:I/a'_I'Z 2 1 a 1 1 �� PP2o15�t22 t PLB-PI,I&Pla PLAN LEGEND ® ra37.. — ars,,.... _G— ATALINA DRIVE __ .:V.�...F.., ., C,t ,.. ' '•: � „ � ti.crvi..xuws�.<�rov..��,,,G.v vw„,.u.v s P_ _ _-- =n-.xvRs _ lITS— P jac 3 we _ — L6J n z» 0 PI v w PSreS Iv£tw5 3 It dSl h ¢vaF 6lwipvr[s [A� IVR�uwk w.u. x� •� �-,� SITE PLAN ��z1 1 DwZI ISS—D scn�e i�a.do” - e L JOLLAD IVE SITE PLAN �\ All 7 PP2o15t22 t PLB-A,&PlAM FLOOR PLAN LEGEND BUILDING 5UMMARY(5F) S� 6 a 3• rr v o wLLJ = 4 N � LU r C) C) 0 evsrwo :soe P.+ns xAie 114 EXISTING-SECOND FLOOR PLAN ' _o EXISTING-FIR5T FLOOR PIAN xALe.iie > -o Al.G SCALE.1<=roLL" - SGL_V4^=r-Oq)2 _� 2 1 _ 1 PP2o15�t22 t PLB-A,I&Platy FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES FLOOR PLAN LEGEND ❑ ❑_ 0 El ❑,.. _ O o ❑u eaa.a.n.w`�n�wE� A, .�a„Tiis.,wi ❑ .wr,c ❑ o_ s ❑ ❑ ❑ -ww. ❑ ��,na..c ❑ sx..�nGw+oA�.� ❑ :, -a�sew.ms y ❑ ❑ ❑ nr n ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑CPFTTF, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4�9a,WEPXFs. ❑ .uu v, ❑ 4 • s.. oiN� ❑'4,F.:Fn ❑ smIN-11"ET A11F1 ❑z vTai=u,: sxi[.� ne ssrov NOTES rAS F S, 2 FSPSTIVISES a-11 F---�,.... 41-10, 11-Fj1 11 0 D ISTIFF -011—.1I F ITS _ os . .. T.. El— El 2 IF C' El �,E:o.: .Ej w , "i x -na -or�' I _ a 9 ' ,>.x.".��..a,,. _ ,�. S z FIT - � ^ SIA FIT EA 7 El a s� p,.�aAll® 'C,rm 1 - 1 ° S € (_. -- - - - p=- GUARDRNLS GENERAL NOTES .. 1_ .x ..xi�,..��� 7 1111�1 T,-1E111 Ill Al 1 FSA, 1,� ,z �z � m. n.:r .�_ a,. -nn FIR5T FLOOR PLAN xAie 114 ' -o � LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PIAN xALeii.- > -o ^2 1 SCALE.vU_P-o" - ,,S SG1_114'='i-O' 2 PP2e15,22 t PL B-Pm^b Elm ATTIC VENTILATION CALCUTATION5 GUARDRAILS GENERAL NOTES O M- O x_C= , F=_M_ - FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES FLOOR PLAN LEGEND Ed,. -- -., , ©u - - - N,�N �. o- ❑ - sII .NW ° ,�� °8��. „u ` �.� ., ❑ o w ❑ . ❑ LIFIFF,_C 1EI 1111,111 DEEPTEIHIFIETHIEEE-11IIIIIII—INE1111 PITT 7F-IF ❑ E,., o : ROOFING SPECIFICATION: ❑ ""' °w ❑ = _..--.* _�, ,a"° ❑ n.:: ❑ --- o "'A,-- >� iA iA ROOF PIAN L=GEND ?. J. J. J. ° NOTES:_IT - '7 —EEI—­AElHI1IF­.MP FIT �° w o- w E Q-­­111-11TIPH LIT, or �II w � A'I1IFE ° ❑ �� `n 9 .e 3 e wy It 14T ,d 3, ��, � III w Em° 1 _ L✓ A 12 T 5E ° n °P w IF R a o =o � � mac : ,. III s t ;I-� IT ­111IFEFAI-IFF.F —,I IF IT "°� /� e C I JI IT ATTIC VENTILATION NOTES 5 ZIP F, xr TMu 0.�F.,.. u,>ie.ir< . -° urge.l a ROOFPLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN /a = - - - ='"r'"-K1X0„'�'"""^„J°• - AG.G sCALE.vU=r0 -;,9xz SGL_Va'=i-d' unsaaw -_ 2 1 _ 1 �� PP2o15,22 MPLB P,&Plaw EXT'cWOR WALL FI�95H LGEND A. HAI L - EA ❑ -o ma s v FL 2 ° ­T FE _ IM Q HiIiAlpWXD e e .: Z "< .� - - _-"ALI -- - - w NORTH ELEVATION(FRONT) /1 - "`-"°'`*'-"""^ y € .. 5GLE:1A-I,C W _ �� - o: 'AT AA i ❑ - fl �i € PC ® °a IT �w WEST ELEVATION'(5IDE) r1 A3,1 J,s. 00 PP2o15t22 t PLB-P,Tt Plaw -- - a EXTEWOR WALL FINISH LG-END UPPS- 00 00IS ❑ u❑ �-' ' � ❑ SnS.TTSS, v w z 0 ❑ FM a o : 1 0 u vme. v T G on. .._avv �nsmors NGO�-GFlW I^Aegrn_iwuwo� wo.1w sa USIS FFM,]W, -I, PARTWL 50UYH ELEVgTION FUME (FROM IA JOLLA) U }FLLJZ m - - - � _ --� `...:n 44.1— 3OLTH ELEVATION(REAR) — — -_ IIA-1 .< , n J SGLE:1/d"_1'-0' Ln ®❑ - pq 90El ,. o P f� II . .nom s R IC,I SPIT-11 sTiSS ���„o..,o.,. men Ix1 ............... —111i.T.,— EA5T ELEVATION(51DE) _ xoi_ii< . -o• n L Je3= PP2U15t22 ni PCB-P,&Plaw --jPi2 s 5 T S.en@n _ Reaabl <5 I I _ ertx n.n 1 'i£ ' u s2 �xP7 5 l� ( C 1 10, 7-1 45 om �U 11 ®vt mJ 51 ry .wnv I[L nwu<c ti s'c°� y 1 51M 4_ x [�wei x 1 59 s w a zV w SECTION /1 SECTION € sCAc 1/4^-1-ascu=_:vta^-ra ,L+>.3 to w _ L✓ _ -_ ,F - _ _ -- -r- —- V z --- --- 11 1 G G .rPI s �r @B as i 12 IT SECTION SECTION �.o n n rL1 p 3 SC>LE'1/4"_1'n' 1 2 1 PP2o15t22 t PLB-P,I&Platy 1 .m 511 ns.v„x vn.n <Sn I KI i .,.s v - ,— r ru:;c e . Y � e•i,u,e - h� - W - i z ti�� W SEC�ON w.,l_e.114 /1 5ECTION sn�e.�,n - -o• n € LL SC4LE:W-1,0' .< 5L1E:✓'-pJ W _ S z All- 13 n ga m ---- ✓� ..,..,.w - --- .,.... . _ .. _.. w.ue All 1 rl I �.. M1:�4� �• ,��,".,� -a. e a SECTION Yee_va - /� SECTIONA3.4 2 J PPM15.122 A�h—t PCS-Ar ,{ FWm GPAp1NARENER"LN� PRECISE GRADING PLAN °EW NOES rtwv, W. DE3wWEON R THE TROESH RESIDENCE FI umnMxev�B 333 LA JOLLA DRIVE,NEWPORT BEACH AywLwaervs mrvw'e¢ r¢wrn.:rt:amw:xue om �F �11­ I JAA umxm.arwcw.raru.w..esam:�ewwma ornn, F y e.6H '� arr d E WI IA vwowwNnmaru aaa®m.awuxve.wa.areunwr.nae ae.:a v w.vww. u••w m w.mv.ave ua°�� wearvn..uan m.wwsamuuir d .�w'.���rnv'"�vc •••w. oruw...wurmxs �.Ig `,' .0 ,...„ xov.. o.,s..w..o.s .aux,me.,.:RR.mx..�..o�..xEx...�E.B.... m�m.troE+W..�w,. fie• w,rm,.,.,m.MR.,,.r,..rrd•.. �. Btl a_ �mm .mr,,. . VETE'. fid" roou.,s.z..q¢ouwuia'[o VICIII[1Y MAP "C"AB A"WIL.v YE FOR 1l"BAR4 ON .ue[.rnova ar.:cnuaar:wmor.uovm,[ror[avr.mmww CA,"NJD BBE3NSPELTEDBV CHEPS UNOER A SET.UATE{BHI! m w'9 WkSES OF BEARAYOIA t—T : EARTMVCPE ESTGNATE' moamxurta:a wa wm[dn¢wm[mmry rtmeamaure[ d . nxom.er. .mm BENLHMAW(:xF emc ro...�:mRm nmam®.r RO—I—F-m C p �• wrnon irtvarvite�mu[a evn✓:::w+a.n .m.mami .rwe MLSC9IANEWS NOTES: 72 E v LEGAL OESmtir+BN: r.umrcw w+maruow,.Ex.norm.m•.amowamrxvy au..«w:xrv. u,r.Rmo,mxwuRwa x.ra.wnRw w mmnryaue •x m. , e.mr . m vay.. .w.r. � c .nu..om,. or:ror a a. ,w rw EO31y ENRENEEA crx. •:°Een.m wwcau.u,Ewee..na a O] r.:aax .—­n.w nm . ..uxu.woaw I.EARARPa :w a ,r«-w.r..uwra..w.vaxwvommx.a.w.umw.r wm:anvowm we e.x.uuarrvnnx.¢em a im mnnnv x aur, e¢awmrreorom[wupuxo[r...0[ra,sm umrw •usun'.� EN6INE R'B TILE TOOWNERCOQ� 3ACT046IRLHI�ER: w WMER: mwa,gq,(:v.[:wmm.umu[ereEeuwswuev.µiwruem -1-0 ux.:wm au,m w®.nam[ sous EN6aEER AND RE'a `A CE¢T3FTCATTON'. T. xmaiRBw �­— e..:B-mRe­Om PP ..¢anv..[w,xxoarw:awmm[¢.am.ssrcaewv.[xua.rm„¢a 6R D.N3N6PUN 1 71 .mewxax..:.w„w.:<nrrna,aff.:..,rm�.mawNw,x„ m,. ..,.Em �C-1� «5 PP2o1S122 Attz h—t PL 6-Pmletl Plane IwTFS e w.... cescxarxoN��� q— --KW _ 4 �� f W UAAn'A'UFT.1R'A'-M�VEWAY FeOFTEwOFnE ex�eTM ^ \.2 s/ O / \ \ �Ni wuxev SE�N�xro[uews[rt �A�n wemxe. S . =n=nNs cEsmENce���Apppo.a.w\ �o.,k - " rwra � t4 me.wem.. \. >m � AuM FRE P MArNArN /. \ Szoury f r TIT C d E m. ♦ �.• ew smr.wmoxrtt—J ~e SUB LN fAAOE SE[RON� FL/J mrvw t" �FF 1 9 eerte.w2w m, w.ua � O ra r+.B aaw �a U C69 �wr�i �/re - u wrre s�u�v\ BASEMEN w Y �P� e N umr iw nm S m j � BMEMLN! Uy SELiIQi[ m,ufwour � m2 4rP, fmru S �4\ ry wwervmnawrfrm nes.xw.swafexxrnfwfof a�.ufsx.00rv.xor.afwze 6MO�ENGVLAN S s[cnaN o as F. C-Z isa aF5 ] 3 a 5 8 6� PA2016122 A, h—t PLS-Prz,a Platy CATALINA DR. Y✓ 1LR110•, �yy3�5 �• b[ 3' 6 r w._ � m s 'y ri d✓ �1� ��aa y f� E Y� L W&\ i TOPOGRAPHIC MAP S ; - -- S:SF.L: ax urwxA pa.rtvcmr gupi u valasE LA JDLLA M. suoxusvue a.5 AI�M1man�PLS-PrGatl Plan pE W.JDBRrt=N / wnwmnwxomsueawsysrrwmwcaunam�®awns mvrm i 7 F � �.s•"`'� p� z FI i i PoEc w E 6Pap NGVL�N 20 ' ` x 5 G4 a5 PP 15.132 .—t PL S-P•Gatl Plan¢ Y MLIYT'ILII.M'�fINTIN Y WIWOMf6 _.__u.—er�au..0 r , a.0 u a..r.�H+.• _ _ temlg4Yw•In _ �=._n��+m+•:^-.�.y= rM ._....r._w_._.+✓�^ u�._ .u...—... ..r_.•w'......rte�.. — r..•—u LTlln'1WN[t1 Y10tlILL w._._- ' Y�9i BY®®Y.LWfp � r._._.....T_...rvr wa•u.. Y Imf1C@A�Y.Ie .+ua. _� _ _ u 11 YLi6f1AVIL\O YNIIMLYI�a J ®s CUa U C 1 6] � .y L L � y d O L � e a S ! ae PRMSE G A..IPV C-5 �5 1 4 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - OCTOBER 8, 2015 Importance: High PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 8, 2015 ITEM NO. 3a: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED TROESH RESIDENCE (PA2015-122) From: Nathan Littrell [mailto:nalittCcaomail.coml Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 7:17 PM To: Van Patten, Jason Cc: Kiff, Dave; Jacobs, Carol; Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Brandt, Kim; Selich, Edward Subject: 336 Catalina/333 La Jolla Project file # PA2015-122 Importance: High All, Thank you in advance. I received a mail flyer last week regarding the Troesh property plans and the meeting on 10/8 with the public. My first thought after reading and little bit of research was "how did this even make it this far in the process?" As a home owner on La Jolla Drive, I am against this proposed modification as it not only is vague in detail (ie. "allow a property that is non confirming to add more that 10%of the existing floor area developed on the site...), it also has the potential to effect virtually every other home in Newport Heights with regards to the exception of a retaining wall to exceed 42 inches in height w/in the 5 foot setback.This is all I know from the flyer I received. In addition,there will be a problem with regards to "ocean views" of homes that would be to the east of this one. La Jolla is an already confined street and above and beyond that aspect, how will one account for construction activities? I cannot even imagine the city is willing to block off a street for something like this are they? Jason, as the Planner of record based on the mail flyer, can you let me know how something like this made it to the point where we are actually rethinking the rules and regulations set forth by the city? I remember just a few years ago trying to re align my exterior stairs a few feet into the setback area and being told it would not ever happen. I am wondering what has changed since then. I appreciate the time and look forward to hearing back from you when time permits. Due to business travels I will not be able to make the meeting on 10/8 but wanted to let the team know that in reality, this does not make sense in terms of maintaining the integrity of the codes set by the city as well as opening the flood gates in terms of others looking to do something similar which ultimately defeats the purpose of having regulations all together. I can be reached if needed at 714.337.9077. Have a good evening. 1 Nathan Littrell 345 La Jolla Dr. 2 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3b: Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - 10/08/2015 PC Meeting Attachments: Objection to Project File No.docx From: "Jim young" <jimy9(cr > Subject: PA2015-122 Date: October 6, 2015 at 9:03:08 AM PDT To: <kkramer(c),pacifichospitali .com>, <tim-brown(c�,sbcglobal.net>, <pkR1encagles(4jnnai1.com>, <BHi11gren(&HighRhodes.com>, <ray.lawler(c hines.com>, <eweigand(a,newportbeachca.gov>, <pzakknewportb eachca.gov> Dear members of the Planning Commission: The property owners on La Jolla Drive are united against passage of PA2015-122. We are addressing you directly because the Planning Department has a deaf ear to our objections which we believe to be valid and in line with zoning laws in effect for sixty years. We bought our property thinking that the zoning laws would protect everyone's property rights rather than a privileged few. We have attached our objections. Thank you for your consideration, James Young 318 La Jolla Drive i Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3b: Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Objection to Project File No: PA2015-122 Argument against access to La Jolla Drive from Catalina Drive lots. 1. The original planners never envisioned such an encroachment. a. They only provided for a 5' setback which is appropriate for the rear of a structure that abuts an alley. In contrast, the R-1 lots on La Jolla that face the street have a 5' right of way plus a 10' setback. b. The street is only 20' wide which is one half of a regular street due to the topography. If the original planners had thought that there would be driveways in the middle of the 300 block of La Jolla, they would have provided a proper street for guest parking and a proper setback for facing the street. There is only parking on one side of the street and only one traffic lane so if two cars meet, someone must backup. c. The lots in question are R-2 lots on Catalina Drive and it was assumed that all structures would face and have access to Catalina which is a full sized street. Why didn't the property owners who purchased these properties plan for such access when they built the original structures? 2. The consequences of the approval of the application. a. Wouldn't this be a problem for zoning? Would this be a lot split with R-1 status or would it be a condo like 325 La Jolla? There seems to be no application concerning a zone change. The Planning Department has told us that the lots on Catalina have a right to access on La Jolla Drive. Who made this determination? How is this adhering to an R-2 designation? This is in effect saying that these property owners have two lots with the new structure facing La Jolla rather than Catalina. If the new structure faces La Jolla Drive, why does it not have to have the same right of way and setbacks as all the other houses on La Jolla? It appears the Planning Department has rezoned these lots on their own authority. b. Why wouldn't the other four property owners on Catalina want to do the same thing? That would result in five new driveways in the middle of the 300 block. Since street parking is already a problem, how can such traffic be justified? People even park here and walk to the beach and under those conditions where would guests park? Trying to have a small party would be bedlam. c. One of the assets of La Jolla Drive is that it's quiet and that is a property value. We value this and if this proposal is passed it will be detrimental to our property and the enjoyment thereof. Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3b: Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Conclusion: This would produce a great change in the neighborhood and destroy its unique character. We the property owners respectfully request that you reject this application and ban further such encroachments. This request does no damage to the property owners on Catalina and we don't seek to prohibit them from enjoying the property they bought. However, they did not buy property on La Jolla Drive. Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Date:September 13,2015 To City of Newport Beach From: Neighbors on and around La Jolla Dr,Newport Beach CA 92663 Referencing: Project N PA2015.122 Location:336 Catalina Drive We,the undersigned,are In receipt of a certain Notice of Public Hearing mailed on September 5, 2015,indicating that owners Jon and Elsa Troesh have applied for a Modification Permit and Variance with the City of Newport Beach to benefit their property on 336 Catalina Drive.We understand this matter will be heard during a public hearingon September 17,2015. Let Abe known that we are completely a aintamending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add nob-conforming floor area and driveway that will have an serious impact on traffic,safety and parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Dr is a very narrow street Conly 19'10"feet wide)which only allows for parking on one side of the street and only one lane is accessible to drive in going both directions. Its parking capacity already exceeds its maximum with some residents forced to park off La Jolla Dr.For the City to allow a new dwelling by expanding a home on a completely different street that results in a significant negative impact on a second street(which doesn't currently hold an address on La Jolla Dr),is unacceptable. We would not be adverse for them to add additional square footage on their existing property,which has access from their street(Catalina),but It is the added burden to La Jolla Dr that we are against. Sincerely, - Print Name S� igrfature Address Print Name Sigrialture Address 3. 6L ��LL1 1t' wh Print Name Signature 4 Address ,c Print Narie Slgn e Address Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) S. Jif 11 , FNSo ') :1—j--� Print Name Signature 303 1 x, la 'D k- /U . 9. hl 9 Q (- .,3 Address �a 6. Print Name Sig r Address r ,6'L Print Name _ Signat e L-A Address Print Name Signature 3SG t_� ablt0. Address9. / Print Name Signatur Address io. Print Nam— a Signature 3 4y 40 Address Print Name Signature Address > Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Date:September 13,2015 To City of Newport Beach From:Neighbors on and around La Jolla Dr,Newport Beach CA 92663 Referencing:Project#PA2015-122 Location: 336 Catalina Drive We,the undersigned,are in receipt of a certain Notice of Public Hearing mailed on September 5, 2015,indicating that owners Jon and Elsa Troesh have applied for a Modification Permit and Variance with the City of Newport Beach to benefit their property on 336 Catalina Drive.We understand this matter will be heard during a public hearing on September 17,2015. Let it be known that we are completely against amending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add non-conformliig Floor area and driveway that will have an serious impact ort traffic,safety and parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Dr is a very narrow street(only 19'10"feet wide)which only allows for parking on one side of the street and only one lane Is accessible to drive in going both directions. Its parking capacity already exceeds its maximum with some residents forced to park off La Jolla Dr.For the City to allow a new dwelling by expanding a home on a completely different street that results in a significant negative impact on a second street(which doesn't currently hold an address on La Jolla Dr),Is unacceptable. We would not be adverse for them to add additional square footage on their existing property,which has access from their street(Catalina),but it is the added burden to La Jolla Dr that we are against. Sincerely, e Print Name Signature Address 2. Care. 8orInm Print Name Signature 1l0/ Je✓Ifz GhaClye. �/ew��, < acGl 92cr� 3 Address 3. Print Name Signature Address 4. Print Name Signature Address Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Print Name Sigt a re Y/Sr L w Jc, )j a py•. Address 1,.. o Print NameSi atS '� ,� Address Print Name Signature Address �} Print Name Signature Address 6 y Print Name Signature Address �73X AoV QY � c � Print Name Signatu 03 -3-7 6Af� - A►1a. ht, f4tWW?oy'?UJA, Address Print Name Signature Address Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Date:September 13,2015 To City of Newport Beach From:Neighbors on and around La Jolla Dr,Newport Beach CA 92663 Referencing:Project#PA2015.122 Location,336 Catalina Drive We,the undersigned,are in receipt of a certain Notice of Public Hearing mailed on September 5, 2015,indicating that owners Jon and Elsa Troesh have applied for a Modification Permitand Variance with the City of Newport Beach to benefit their property on 336 Catalina Drive.We understand this matter will be heard during a public hearing on September 17,2015. Let it be known that we are completely Minst amending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add Kofi-conforming floor area and driveway that will have an serious impact on traffic safetyand parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Or Is a very narrow street(only 19'10"feet wide)which only allows for parking on one side of the street and only one lane is accessible to drive in going both directions. Its parking capacity already exceeds Its maximum with some residents forced to park off La Jolla Dr.For the City to allow anew dwelling by expanding a home on a completely different street that results in a significant negative impact on a second street(which doesn't currently hold an address on La Jolla Dr),Is unacceptable. We would not be adverse for them to add additional square footage on their existing property,which has access from their street(Catalina),but it is the added burden to La Jolla Or that we are against. Sincerely, 1, P4 fE1.&6,Psy �eC�uo Print Name Signature 337 s wr+ A-Vk q�k Alar c�a� �3�ac�! ca g2lG� Address 2._ Print Name Signature Address 3. Print Name Signature Address 4. Print Name Signature Address Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) 337 Santa Ana Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 October 7, 2015 To the Newport Beach Planning Commission: We are unable to attend the hearing on October 6, 2015, and send this statement to voice our strong opposition to the request for a Modification Permit and Variance at 336 Catalina Dr., Newport Beach, as it is currently proposed. We reside at 337 Santa Ana Ave., Newport Beach, with our garage and parking area accessed from La Jolla Dr. La Jolla Dr. is an extremely narrow street. With parking on one side of the street, it only accommodates traffic going one way. If you meet another car going in the opposite direction, you must reverse back up the street to allow the car to go by. This alone is problematic, but to add yet another residence and accompanying construction equipment and vehicles to this overburdened street, will create a logistical nightmare. In addition, we believe this creates a significant safety concern. If there were a fire in the canyon area around the house, fire equipment would have difficulty accessing the property and evacuation would be difficult if not impossible. Finally, the proposed property will take away natural sea breezes and views from the surrounding neighbors. A structural addition off of the existing Catalina address is acceptable and will not create the above-mentioned problems. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Joy"A. Price Gordon D. Sheldall l < :•� •I�' ENE Planning Commission �► Public Hearin Modification Permit and Variance PA201 122 - g� ( 5- ) � October 8, 2015 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting A ki. 22) Vicinity MapF U. �00.N�'S + \ _ j39 I - 5}ii III '11 ,05 X20 f , V a , AAA t z� _x z 10/o8/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 -� ••-� -- •- • • • -1 - ' --�-ffff.W--9=Mlff=-- -' -1 1 • Site Photograph 77l low ( r - F ) Site Photograph �ewF yyr i T 0. U •Y r r Site Photograph Y Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No 3d- Addotmanal UafermQls Presented 2t NAe ting 22) Site Photograph ir •�- gam � M v4Wq{ A � I io/o8/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 6 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 22) Modification Permit Add more than 10% to property with nonconforming parking . Relief due to physical and practical difficulties . 10/o8/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 7 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No 3d- Addotmanal UafiermQls Presented 2t NAe ting 22) Existing Dwelling Entry Facing Catalina Existing Garage 2nd Floor Outline 193"Wide JNw up, 2-c (CA2y_ m — o r` N O JTT_� 0 --------- ------ io/o8/zoi5 Community Development Department- Planning Division 8 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 22) Variance \ , q</P00.N\ Wall and guardrail greater than 42" in height in front setback ( La Jolla ) . Relief due to topography and City Standard for driveway design . 10/o8/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 9 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No 3d- Addotmanal UafermQls Presented 2t NAe ting 22) Side Elevation 4 La Jolla Right-of-Way—� LU z Scope of Variance CONCRETE CURB W SETBACK 1 ; 1 0 m D D GARA E 124 DRIVEWAY BEYOND 121.00 @ IN6 N (t9 BASE OF WALL RETAINING WALL 1 i 116.8' NG ` L1NE OF EXISTING GRADE LINE OF NEW GRADE io/o8/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10 Front Elevation u���ini�aununnini Fv���-=��-•v���-ofA�•-= `. `. �. ���1��� . . - . •• OF •• FLOW UINE AT CURB ENTRY WALKWAY 122.42 —Ts:;,s FROM r• yGRADE • - • r • • r rING 9,11 • • r ar • r Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 22) Summary Adequate on -site parking provided . Development complies with Zoning Code . Variance preserves ability to provide a second dwelling unit and access from La Jolla Drive . No visual obstruction created by wall and guardrail . io/o8/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 12 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting Recommendation I MIAM6 Adopt the draft resolution approving, Modification Permit No . MD2015 -oo8 and Variance No . VA2015 -003 . 10/o8/zoi5 Community Development Department - Planning Division 13 Mil - 112111101crarnfraren--------------------------- '- --�- - —1 • r *i a ti 4 M 46 I For more information contact: Jason Van Patten 949-644-3234 jvanpatten@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting AOL 22) Vicinity Map a lik I 11 C'f[/FORN�P• ^ 0.f I 3 sob � o m 1r t Py P1 °4s m Zen P COs ill u e P 1 ej M1O:+ t 4 s J,6 2214 J fl-0 e � 2MI 1) Rp ass � tri 10/o8/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 15