Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - 2.0_Troesh Residence - PA2015-122 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 17, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 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 The applicant requests the following in conjunction with a detached, 4,451-square-foot dwelling: • 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. The Planning Commission originally reviewed this request at the October 8, 2015, meeting and continued the project to provide staff additional time to consider and respond to comments from commissioners and the public. 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). BACKGROUND On October 8, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request and received public comment. Generally, residents commented that the project would 1 Troesh Residence Planning Commission, December 17, 2015 Page 2 negatively affect public parking along La Jolla Drive, traffic, safety, and the character of the neighborhood. Refer to the October 8, 2015, meeting minutes regarding public comments (Attachment No. PC 2). At the conclusion of the meeting the Planning Commission continued the item to November 5, 2015. The applicant subsequently requested to continue the item to a date to be determined. DISCUSSION The applicant's request for a modification permit and variance remain unchanged from the October 8, 2015, meeting. In addition, the design of the detached dwelling remains the same. Refer to the October 8, 2015, staff report packet for an overview and analysis of the requested applications (Attachment No. PC 3). A letter provided by the applicant and addressed to the Planning Commission is included as Attachment No. PC 4. The discussion that follows addresses general concerns raised by the public. Public Comment Public comments generally addressed the proposed driveway access from La Jolla Drive that would be created for the new dwelling. Parking Residents conveyed that the proposed project would overburden on-street parking. La Jolla Drive is a narrow public street that allows for two-way traffic. There is limited red curb through the subject area and no signs restricting parking on either side of the street. Based on field observations, public comments, and the City Traffic Engineer's experience, vehicles typically park in manner that allows space for other vehicles to pass and generally park on one side of the street. These practices are not expected to change with the implementation of the project. Staff acknowledges that La Jolla Drive is a narrow street with limited parking and explored design alternatives to address resident concerns. The scenarios could provide options to vehicles that might drive to the property and otherwise require parking along La Jolla Drive. One option included setting the garage back further from the La Jolla Drive property line to provide enough driveway depth for additional vehicles to park in front of the garage, off the street. The applicant studied the feasibility of moving the garage back to accommodate enough driveway depth and indicated there were challenges. Vehicles may only park in front of a garage if the garage is setback a minimum of 20 feet from the street property line and slopes five percent or less pursuant to Zoning Code Sections 20.40.070 (Development Standards for Parking Areas) and 20.40.090 (Parking Standards for Residential Uses). Due to the steep topography of the subject property, the applicant indicated that setting the garage further back would not help the driveway profile which slopes more than five percent. Further, shifting the garage would result in the dwelling being located closer to the existing dwelling on the 2 Troesh Residence Planning Commission, December 17, 2015 Page 3 northerly half of the property. This would reduce the separation between structures and increase the visual bulk and scale of development on the property. Other options included a three-car garage on La Jolla Drive or pedestrian access to the dwelling from Catalina Drive via a private walkway and rear entry. A third side-by-side garage space on La Jolla Drive would result in a wider curb cut and driveway, which may be contrary to concerns raised by the public. Pedestrian access from Catalina Drive to the rear of the proposed dwelling via a private walkway down the side of the property may prove to be the most feasible. Access from Catalina Drive may provide visitors with an alternative parking option and would create additional access during construction. However, there is no mechanism to enforce or require use of the walkway. The steep topography and distance to the proposed dwelling from Catalina Drive may deter its use. The walkway may also serve as a detriment to the privacy of residents residing within the existing dwelling fronting Catalina Drive. Traffic Vehicle trips generated by the dwelling are minimal when spread throughout the day (approximately 10 average daily trips) and will have limited effect on traffic through the street. Several properties along La Jolla Drive between Cliff Drive and Beacon Street rely on an alley for vehicular access. The alleys are accessible from multiple points of entry. Routes of travel for dwellings within the vicinity of the subject property currently vary and these alternatives for traffic will remain. Safety Residents inquired about impacts to emergency vehicle access as well as access to nearby homes during construction. Access provided to emergency vehicles will not change with the proposed dwelling and driveway. Staff confirmed with both the Police Department and Fire Department that there is no indication of any recorded access issues. In fact, the Police Department found no indication of any issue among the variety of calls for service during the calendar year. A review of records also indicates that there are no active violations or complaints from the public regarding access, parking, or traffic along La Jolla Drive. Construction may create an impact to nearby residents without appropriate measures. A construction management plan is a means to addressing safety as well as to preserve access during construction. This plan would be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to permit issuance for any demolition and grading and would include a discussion of project phasing, parking arrangements during construction, anticipated haul routes, and construction measures to minimize disruptions to residents and the right-of-way. A condition of approval (Condition of Approval No. 9) requiring the applicant to submit a construction management plan is incorporated in the draft resolution. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant would be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 3 Troesh Residence Planning Commission, December 17, 2015 Page 4 Neighborhood Compatibility In addition to resident concerns about incompatibilities with parking, traffic, and safety, public comment suggested that the size of the dwelling may affect the character of the neighborhood. The proposed dwelling complies with setback, parking, height, and floor area limits within the applicable zoning district and is consistent with design criteria specified by the Zoning Code. The dwelling provides open patios, decks, architectural treatments, and the upper floors are set back further into the property. The project deviations are limited to the requested modification permit and variance. The proposed floor area on the property is 1,883 square feet less than the maximum allowed by right (9,092 square feet maximum — 7,209 total proposed). Therefore, a neighboring property of similar size may be developed with more floor area. Summary and Alternatives Staff recommends approval of the requested modification permit and variance based on the findings provided in the draft resolution. Although La Jolla Drive is a narrower street, facts do not suggest that the applicant's request and overall project will be detrimental to the public or surrounding property owners. The proposed dwelling with access from La Jolla Drive does not deviate from minimum setback, parking, height, and floor area limits. Vehicular access proposed is also consistent with many properties in the 300 Block of La Jolla Drive that currently have garages and driveways that take direct access from La Jolla Drive. There is generally no evidence that would suggest on-street parking, traffic, or safety would decline below the current condition due to the proposed project or that the proposal is incompatible. Further, the required construction management plan would minimize impacts during construction. The following alternative actions are also available for the Planning Commission should they be necessary: 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 5). 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 4 Troesh Residence Planning Commission, December 17, 2015 Page 5 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 October 8, 2015 Meeting Minutes PC 3 October 8, 2015 Staff Report PC 4 Letter from Applicant PC 5 Draft Resolution to Deny PC 6 Project Plans 5 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution to Approve V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� g 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, 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. The Planning Commission continued the project to November 5, 2015. 6. On November 5, 2015, the item was continued at the request of the applicant to a date to be determined. 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##### Page 2 of 11 7. A public hearing was held on December 17, 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. 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: <jW4WWV 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. 03-03-2015 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 11 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. 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 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 6 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. 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##### Page 4 of 11 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. 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 03-03-2015 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 of 11 construction of a dwelling that complies with setback, height, floor area, and parking requirements. 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. 5. As conditioned, the applicant is required to submit a construction management plan to minimize construction related impacts to neighboring properties and ensure adequate access through La Jolla Drive. 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 03-03-2015 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 6 of 11 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. 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. 03-03-2015 -1 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 7 of 11 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. 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: J. 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. 03-03-2015 115 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 8 of 11 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. 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 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 10 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. Vehicles shall not park in the driveway in front of the garage or project into the public right-of-way. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing, parking arrangements during construction, anticipated haul routes, and address minimization of construction disruptions to the adjacent right-of-way. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 10. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that 03-03-2015 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 10 of 11 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. 11. 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, 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 12. 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. 13. 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 14. 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 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 03-03-2015 Zg Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 11 of 11 18. 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. 19. Each unit shall be served by separate water and sewer services. Each shall be installed per the applicable City standard. 20. 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. 21. 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 29 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �o Attachment No. PC 2 October 8, 2015 Meeting Minutes 21 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �� NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 r Kramer noted his agreement with the Community Development Director's determination and noted that the ap Ilent's suggestions to utilize elevations following the artificial fill on the site, is contrary to the definition o tablished grade as identified in the Municipal Code. Additionally, he stated he cannot find granting a spec rivilege in this case as grades on adjacent properties are representative of the natural grade. Likewise, ev ith the denial, a house can be built and the owners can enjoy their property; it just needs to conform to the c Motion made by Commissioner Koe ' and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 1994 denying the appellant's Appeal to Planning Co ission and upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weig ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak Community Development Director Brandt and Deputy Community Develop nt Director Wisneski re-entered the Chambers. As there were technical difficulties with the presentation for Item No. 3, Item No. 5 we nsidered at this time. ITEM N0.3 TROESH RESIDENCE(PA2015-122) Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten presented the staff report including details of the applications, location, existing conditions, vehicular access, the proposed new dwelling, topography, Zoning Code requirements, setbacks, City standards for driveway design, and findings and recommendations. He noted that the City received correspondence from various members of the public, addressing circulation through La Jolla Drive, traffic and parking, and that the City Traffic Engineer and the project architect are available to answer questions at this time. Commissioner Weigand noted a phone conversation with Assistant Planner Van Patten and summarized their discussion regarding the subject property. He commented on parking issues and expressed concerns with construction traffic and parking. Additionally, he expressed concerns regarding emergency safety vehicle access. Assistant Planner Van Patten explained there is sufficient emergency access and there is no change to the existing access with the addition of the proposed dwelling. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine stated there is no history regarding the adjacent street being a one-way street. He added that aerial photographs show that consistently, people park on the south side of the street and there is little-to-no parking on the north side. Additionally residents of the area seem to police themselves in terms of driving and parking on the street. Red zones would not be implemented unless there is a request from the neighborhood. Discussion followed regarding maintaining a clear roadway as well as on-street parking. Chair Kramer noted the issues for consideration at this time. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Craig Smith, project architect, offered to respond to questions or concerns. In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Assistant Planner Van Patten reported that the existing structure which is accessed from Catalina Drive will be a rental property. The property owner will live in the new unit. Page 3 of 10 23 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 John Ogbum, nearby resident, confirmed that residents self-police the neighborhood and have assigned parking spaces. He added that arrangements for parking are made for anyone planning on entertaining guests. In terms of fire vehicles, he reported that it is impossible for them to make a tum when parking is full. He commented on construction access from La Jolla Drive and expressed concerns regarding access to homes of other residents while construction vehicles are present. In that case, emergency vehicles would not be able to get through. He addressed the proposed retaining wall and stated he cannot understand how the project could move forward without adequate conditions for slippage on the property. He noted this is a new address and expressed concerns that the project, if approved, would set a precedent for neighboring lots. He added that red curbs would make it difficult for resident parking. He referenced a petition signed by community members on La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive and opposed accessing the new residence from La Jolla Drive. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of making the project work, depending on design, similar conditions of other properties in the area, the evolution of the neighborhood from summer homes to permanent homes, children's play houses, interactions with the applicant, and existing properties that currently have driveways. Chair Kramer noted that the zoning is R-2, which makes it legitimate for a property owner to have two units on a property. Assistant Planner Van Patten noted that the property abuts two public streets and access can be from either side. The City can assign an address that applies to the front-facing house. Chair Kramer reported that the property provides a unique circumstance and allows for different access. They may have two different addresses, one on La Jolla Drive and the other on Catalina Drive. Jim Young spoke in opposition to the project creating access from La Jolla Drive. He referenced his written comments and asked whether an R-2 lot may have two different addresses. He expressed concern that there is a double standard and asked that the Commission not encroach on La Jolla Drive with five more driveways. Gavin Sacks, adjacent property owner, commented on the narrow streets and the character of that particular area. He added there are always cars parked on the south side of La Jolla and related an incident where his son almost got run over by a utility vehicle. He noted it is extremely narrow and that there is not enough buffer area for people to walk safety. He addressed existing mature trees and referenced the Zoning Code in terms of the Planning Commission's purview in ensuring that plans are kept in character with the neighborhood. He commented on the average square footage of houses in the area, and opined that it is in everyone's best interest to determine that the proposed project does not conform to the unique character of the neighborhood. Bill Anderson spoke in opposition to the project and felt that it would change the character of the neighborhood, dramatically. He commented on La Jolla being a one-way street and asked the Commission to consider this matter, carefully and with common sense. Mr. Ogburn invited the Commission to walk the street on a Sunday afternoon to see how tight and narrow the street is. He reiterated concerns with access for emergency vehicles. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Koetting commented on the square footage limit and Assistant Planner Van Patten addressed the City's calculation for maximum floor area. Additionally, he reported on review of the plans by the Building Division. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that the City would not propose red curbs on one side of the street and it is not something that neighbors would want because there would be a loss of on street-parking. Vice Chair Brown commented on the unique character of the neighborhood and suggested adding a Condition of Approval that construction vehicles would have to park off-site. Page 4 of 10 24 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Chair Kramer indicated he is not satisfied with the amount of data that has been presented, in order to make a decision. He requested continuing this item to allow staff to gather more facts. He added there are too many unanswered questions and noted residents'concerns. Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres suggested continuing the matter to a date certain and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski suggested scheduling for November 5, 2015. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 2015. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak RECESS AND RECONVENE Chair Kramer called for a recess at 8:21 p.m. Chair Kramer reconvened the meeting at 8:26 p.m. with all Members present, except Commissioners Hillgren, Lawler and Zak. M NO.4 VERIZON MONOEUCALYPTUS TREE(PA2015-128) Site Location: 23 Corporate Plaza Associate Planner Makana Nova provided details of the staff report addressing the proposed telecommuni tions facility, project site, surrounding properties, site plan, location of the monopole and additional euca tus trees to be planted, as well as the location of support equipment, screening, the antenna plan, heig of the facility and height limit, one-carrier design, mesh screening and climbing vines, materials, other telec m facilities in the area, and increased data capacity resulting from the project. She addressed CEQA exemp ' ns, findings and staff's recommendation for approval of the proposed facility. Vice Chair Brown inquired abo Condition No. 23 and Associate Planner Nova stated that the site can only hold one carrier and suggested th the condition is not applicable and should be deleted. Secretary Koetting asked regarding th adequacy of the trash enclosures and Associate Planner Nova reported that the project meets the code quirements in terms of trash area to serve the surrounding buildings. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher commented on the applicant and the possibilit f having two parallel applications going through. He expressed concern with Verizon having two sites, close t ether, and wondered why they are not using the rooftop at a nearby building. He referenced his written com nts and recent approvals of other Verizon sites in terms of antenna heights. Additionally, he commented on th materials board and on the importance of Condition No. 12. Jim Warren, nearby resident, expressed concern regarding the height o ucalyptus trees along Coast Highway and with the loss of views of the Harbor. He asked that the Planni Commission continue this matter until further information can be provided so those affected may pa 'cipate in the process. Additionally, he expressed concerns regarding decreased property values because of loss of views. Jim Heinrich, representative for the project applicant, Verizon Wireless, addressed the subje and other sites and reported that the proposed site fits best in their network. He indicated that the proposed pro t meets the City's height standards and that the facility will stay at 32 feet. He addressed maintenance and u eep and Associate Planner Nova noted that Condition No. 11 addresses maintenance. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Page 5 of 10 215 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �� Attachment No. PC 3 October 8, 2015 Staff Report 27 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �� 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). 21 V� QP `-� P �P Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Subject Property S 3 Ji w GENERAL PLAN ZONING op v 1 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 31 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. 3;v Troesh Residence Planning Commission, October 8, 2015 Page 4 Figure 1: Elevation Lu z W SCOPE OF VARIANCE CONCRETE CURB 125.00 I 5' SETBACK 1• M 1 GARA E 124 ,11 - DRIVEWAY BEYOND 121.00' 1 NG @ BASE OF WALL RETAINING WALL 1 INO 11O LINE OF EXISTING GRADE LINE 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. 35 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; 3� 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. S15 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 3S 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). 31 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: a n Van Patten, Assistant Planner ren a Wisnesifi, ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS or I DrRft rPRGlHtieR to PC 3 Applicant's project descriptions PC 4 Site photographs PC 5 Public correspondence 19 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Project Descriptions al V� QP `-� P �P 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. 41 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/ALL 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 4;V 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 4-S 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. 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 thefront 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 45 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 Attachment No. PC 4 Site Photographs V� QP `-� P �P i View from La Jolla MUM, F FF All q t� } z: 4 1 MM n td T � 6 � h s — � ". � � • - _ sem. _ 1 r^ KI,T ..: • j 1 M E .. ; 1 � F ^iq .y Attachment No. PC 5 Public Correspondence 51 V� QP `-� P �P Woodco Investment Company, Inc. www.woodeoinv.com �ECEIVEp 9y COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2015 SEP 11 2015 JASON VAN PATTEN, ASST , PLANNER C� DEVELOPMENT GT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rOpN�yyPORtO�P 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 NARROWER 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" . T LY YOURS, Wciu6RbW LEWIS 3740 Campus Drive • Suite #100 • Newport Beach, CA 92660-2639 • TEL: (949) 756-8557 • FAX: c9833-0153 RECEIVED COMMUNIry 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 �� oEVEIOpMENT Referencing: Project# PA2015-122 O�4��NPOR-1 e�PV 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 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 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 Dr that we are against. SinceTrelly,,+ N I p /� 1. Jl941-t Print,Name 4Siature �m LAr1-0U-p- Pfl �i 3 Address Print Name Slg ure Address 3. /-0L t l'l W vn Print Name Signature 0 4 Address 4, — 41 h� INA LL PrintNaike Slgn�t e 14-12L� 1911�. �r N API Address 5. KK9 BFNSo1j -- Print Name Signature 3�1 .— JoYa lht-. . /V - 9. l 9-D (L-3 Address Print Name 1 Sig r I Address 7.626 �rc�,(L rG�2 Print Name Signat e Address B. Rc i rl c9�C Print Name Signature Address 9. / SGOTT Print Name Signatur t 3 '13 s ,,1'A t, Address io. L d:;c CI4f/ Print Name Signature 3is IL-2 40 z6s Address Print Name _ Signature I Yl 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 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 agalast amending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add non-conforming Door area ants driveway that will have an serious impact on traffic,safe Ey and parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Dr is a very narrow street(only 1910"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 / Signature ve— Addrreess n 2. Care 8orlc4 Print Name //// Signature 1/0/ SRvIIH GyaC!✓e. lVe&OQad pack 9240&3 Address 3. Print Name Signature Address 4. Print Name Signature Address 5kS Attachment No. PC 4 Letter from Applicant 57 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �g 12/3/2015 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/Variance Concerns Troesh Residence—336 Catalina/333 La Jolla Drive Plan Check No.: 2490-2014 Dear Planning Commission, There was a Planning Commission meeting on October 8,2015 regarding a request for a Variance and Modification for a new residential project located at 333 La Jolla Drive(336 Catalina).The votes for the requests were tabled until a future date,which has been set for December 17,2015. The reason for tabling the vote was not any objections to the Variance and Modification requests,but because of a few concerned neighbors regarding traffic as it pertains to La Jolla Drive.The concerns were for the permanent and construction traffic and parking.We will require the Contractor to provide a construction management plan prior to any demolition and grading. The plan will be subject to review and approval by Public Works. There are nineteen properties that can potentially be attributed for traffic on La Jolla Drive between Cliff Drive and Beacon Street.Fourteen of these properties have been developed with residences. Six of the developed properties have alleys that are accessible from two locations on La Jolla Drive and one location on Santa Ana Avenue.The city has stated that they would anticipate that no more than 10 daily trips would be added by this project if approved. 59 C Smith Architects Inc We have provided the off-street parking requirement per the City of Newport Beach zoning code,Table 3-10,Chapter 20.40.The requirement is 2 per unit in a garage. The access to the garage was a challenge based on the existing topography.The required approach to the garage is dictated by the City of Newport Beach"Sample Driveway Profile (Type"B"),STD-160-L-C.The standard was used at the maximum allowed.The retaining wall to support the driveway became greater than the allowed 42"within the 5' setback.We studied pushing the residence further back,however this did not help the initial required driveway profile and a greater than 42"retaining wall would still be required.This is the reason for requesting the variance. It should be noted that there are residences along this side of La Jolla Drive that have constructed driveway approaches and retaining walls that appear to be as tall, if not greater than we are requesting. 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 •2 FAD Attachment No. PC 5 Draft Resolution to Deny 01 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �� RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING 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, 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. The Planning Commission continued the project to November 5, 2015. 6. On November 5, 2015, the item was continued at the request of the applicant to a date to be determined. 0S Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 3 7. A public hearing was held on December 17, 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. 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 04 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 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 6 Project Plans 07 V� QP �� �P �� �� �P ,`�O �� �� �g PA2015-122 AlmclTmenl Pc s.Prc,eat Flans TROFSH RESIDENCE 333 LA J0«A DRIVE NEWPORT BEACh , CA. . .. ABBREVIATIONS TYPICAL SYSMBOLS SMOKE DETECTOR VOTES CENErAL NOTES VICINITYMAP 5HEETINDEX n m • Is sIs—111 0-1.1a IIIIII IT _ 8 .tea. rs>�. �wx. � —119 D-1-1111— ITIDID-111-111I a TIL - 11-1 �. 1 111s,I ,l—I _ � III.an. W. <..�. . Is— .,. � v - , - 11 —all ® ,.—..a.k=a. �r..�. Q IL x - �. - W a ra ILLDII ave. U .. "ac - CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM NOTES: ETI," r�. ' O115TIALIT" I__ W Pa �. 17 , ILls.., 2IDS. •Fxerv.na y,. ,v�.� IL W —1 I ^^ WINDOW NOBS: TO CITY GENERAL VOTES A1.11--snIl—l—LD 2C CaL­ „u1 11 C- 11 T111 .,a,..o,.�xr z.. .��.aw� srei.LLw.,+s V Z sL Wl CI LITIDI—DIFT—SIDATTITITIDDIIIIII­ Ji waM Il M�_DD . . ar.� w. D_ ILLI-CATLITH ELECTRICAL NOTES CONTACTS C DITIsIlIn ...�,x..a. .,..�b..x, ,r.,.M-....,.x x.,u:..rom ' T0, ADDITIONAL GENERAL NOTES =sC, a1,,,C.�.s�+a,"'An,a ,,I .. ~ ? 'x� : e�flis». —. aroMwxrv,.­ " va r.,r..M Am v11.", I'D ti1� „a , wam�vx wE,siD .-na.., DEFERRED SUBMITTALS: GENERAL INFORMATION ID 51111- i: patois-�zz nnernmam vice-vrq�apla�s .j'i Y�tiWe� _ __:5.._�_ _ .s_r.'�.�aua�.w .. Y ___ =.__.-=...e.,,i _���•` [� �.� LLJ Lu V) .._�..._�.. _ _ W CIN OF NEWPORT BEACH-CAL GREEN RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS CIN OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS g 5G4 z N.TS. NTS. ®ra® �� VEWF.ARBFKN ti.ti eFSDEMW:. I NOTICE REGARDING CONDOMINIUMS 7.1 sca.e.N rs. PA2015-122 stla�meat Pc s.Profen,Flans D FLOOR AREA LIMIT GENERAL INFORMATION II L9 s L A I ILN._ CATALINA DR. v...°w r_7 ; r I .Es.Ma.asr.. ovooevoovooeevoveooveoevooeleoro rwo.ex:a LL- M4 6 _- esn.wM.um IL7 -� _ y•. T,05s BUILDING SUMMARY(55) 6 e w- v l00000rr00000 o 74- I. h, T res Z " r A. . . _y` `.,-� a� R n M 14 z t / f GROUND ELEVAi ION TOABOVE STRUCTURE O"p -- e c, -- -- -- :_ e x _ � <,� :,. yr 711 ::r. GROUND ELEVA�ION TOS,RUCTURE ABOVE { µ;•. -�> ,. —` e ts _ ® ,1— 71 s, m,. c ® .°. . ., e .. — o... e,m,m•,e ere ann __ cereaN.uwv JOLLA DR. x.LE. 1AV 1-0- M .,: .� 23, .: e �• ROOF OVERLAY FOR BUILDING TO (E)GROUND EL-BVATIONS m< lis. Ii, Y _ SRE PLAN su,e.v_ -1'-0' �°� t TM 3G+L.va^:1d' - ':ULE✓^'b V4, _ L PA2015-122 Almbhmenl Pc s.Pls,estPlans B .f� 5R aR %i r��9% , EAST ELEVATION '-"'� uA"`�� '°-0 a SOUTH ELEVATION sc+"'IPP.1-0 � SCALE118-1-0 - ECALE,Va-1'-O' r 5c w a LLL 2 € v _ k LLJ S Z LLI . B aP.'.e & ie' ?a 3 WEST ELEVATION �_,„a -o Al R R SEE SHEET TI.2 FOR ELEVATIONS AT ACTUAL RIDGES AND HIGH POINTS. SEE A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR FLOOR HEIGHT ELEVATION5 A _ oe -ssnaunQ cm v�=_arrzr�nv sa> NORTH ELEVATION 3 I PA2015-122 0— Almdhmenl Pc 6.P:ofecl Flans Hn6RA3L � _ H561TABlE SPAS= ;PKE O 33rii2= 1 590FS 9� V03B9 <sn„�liiuu w�. 3 Op OELK O71 V. 0 61.69 G 3;.14 YM eFs9 rt1 TOT. 1,7 Std L O CQ - ® ® yy� 1,193 f h DECK Op 3364 O � TGT. 23M ;O. — 2a Os --TAR FI 'v w - Z v c w 5ECOND FLOOR PLAN LOWER LEVEL FLOOR?LAN /1 w € - SCALE 1/6"=1'O' 4 ryAE:Ua"=i-p PABITA3's E 4AciTA5LE =ALE SGACE S Z OO 4133 - OL oELK - O ].i.0 LL) ® i39.00 O GCi.95 O 4 TOT. 1°-003 e OO *,C72 3 O191 4iaM ON 31E-0 8 0 _ _ DiLK (D 1-3 S 5.22 TDT. i.8a33 G. 8 O - OT 206.50 1255 TGT. 69?12 GA2Y,�' Oro-1r � 653 �J P=s3 O391 dl °iw e OS YLK TJ. 53095 O O GN2A5E 50. ;31 DEC, 32 OO 15399 H _ TG'. 16559 VTi_Ei . O GARASE 50,I THIRD FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR?LAhP - 6 4 ;LALE!1/6"_1'O - l 4 SLABI/a'_I'� PA2015-122 AlmATmenl Pc s.Pns,eat Plans PLAN LEGEND � a G- ATALINA DRIVE _ ITT, cSS-11 I— � a t M� 9 v rnia SW �� ,spy anuws�w�nout�rynov vmeuwnv 1 Yu a„ =n-xvRs nj ac 3 a - _ - - a ITS—L-1-1-111 uj — IsSDID I"IT 11"IT LLJLL 77� o - ____ _ _ _—311_uvut� w 112 11 Ia ID;s, Iv£tw5 3 I,— — _ h zwv�k�wipvr[s [A� IVRTSImk wV. I I'll SID •� -,ems SITE PLAN 8� Dwscn�e i�a.do" - _ IT, e L JOLLAD IVE 11 IDT I SITE PLAN �\ AM PA2015-122 Almdhmenl PC s.PIOIentPlans FLOOR PLAN LEGEND BUILDING 5UMMARY(5F) .. a-.NSTNG asi:.��x.w�.,.: 11 C-0irs iSd - i., vmeuwnv 'd wa v o w = LLJ N � LU r C) C) 9 90 evsrwo :soe=.+ns xAie 114 EXISTING-SECOND FLOOR PLAN ' _o EXISTING-FIRST FLOOR PIAN xALe.iie - -InA1.2 SCALE-1<=ro" -fig¢ SGL_V4^=r-O - PA2015-122 Almdhmenl PC s.Pns,ect Flan FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES FLOOR PLAN LEGEND ❑ . ,�—._.,. pm.. ❑_ ❑,.. _ O o ❑u eaa.a.n.w`�n A"Z ❑s., ,a,is..wi ❑ .wr,c ❑ o_ s ❑ ❑ ❑ -ww. ❑ ��,na..c ❑ ❑ a�lew.ms. y , ❑..r _ n ,.,,�..� moo,,,. _ p.. � , t _ . rea<,cn O ��,.,�.,.,oz �- ,.v NGiE_ �, 41-10, j ,.� El—FL z - o.: .o, w , uj ©or —. S z Ln W - 10 7—ins— vza..f — — �� 1 6 �. 2 0 '9 1 � a s..�,mta 7inh _ I � aw I� I �� In- 0 ��y zj° 4 r , — 1 .R eal � c x.azs - �,o ,,.- z _ _, __� - - 9 — - .:• - Q ,`. _ __ __� GUARDRNL5 GENERAL NOTES .. ,o-v I 11 1�11T,—IEIII Ill 2 12 Q'I iA, A'-I- ---A �z 1. �ti _2 �6m. .�_ xAie1141_o xALe-ii. _o FIR57 FLOOR PLAN ' r,-) LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PIAN " ^21 SCALE-1U=ro" -� I I SCALE V4'=i-O' 2 PA2015-122 AlmEhmenl Pc s.Prs,eat Plan ATTIC VENTILATION CALCULATION5 GUARDRAILS GENERAL NOTES MIT,- F=—M=.- _ - FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES FLOOR PLAN LEGEND ....�JSIT u�„� [E __ ❑� ,. T] _ -.. -` ❑ o w ❑ ❑ 11LETIZ _ e _G'S',m. .� .", o ❑ m __ o.—. .rr wr,rv,�rl. o >.- y .H'E,x, ❑ FETAL o IF ROOFING SPECIFICATION: ❑ °w ❑ = =..--z»* _�� �J :a"z ®" �.... _ o-'- o WT--F>„r_�-�_.mr�. vme. v PA2015-122 AlmcThmenl Pc 6.Prs,ect Flan EXT'c"Arsa-An.. KI WOR WALL FI�95H LGEND - - ❑ -- I— ❑,, rt- - ❑ 21 o ❑ -oma ❑ -- ❑ �.,...,.,_.",AS s 2 ❑ _,,.,..` ��...�. vme. v . isLI­ ❑ n az+8 - i -T 21 e �InH Is .: Z "ALI "< .� - - _EI. -- - - W NORTH ELEVATION(FRONT) /1 - "`-"°'`*'-"""^ € .. 5GLE:1A-1'-0' - "" V W _ S z IA - - - - - - � IA PL ILI s 4Lf, I ❑ — " mph"` —_ - - - — -- - t�z � �C r -=still txax vnssn" — �w WEST ELEVATION'(5IDE) A3,1 Is PA2015-122 AlmcThmenl PC s.PrUleat Flan - a EXTEWOR WALL FINISH LG-END - - 00 00 ❑ u❑ �-' ' �r ❑ z o ❑ 44 ❑ 6 EA _ . p d ❑ c vme.�v IsII, ❑r�a..� �.,�.v.z,o T sw..avv �a Lm NmoO GFlW s+negrn_i rnou wow IIAUSC ¢wa_u,=o-ee:w__________� _ _ _ n.. :oa:x�,av uccnnuvcm.nwsx�.mwexru'.rx''rrnsam mr,Lnsi mnvL_ 1_ w.wLa_i-z�m J STS --�� =ff000 PARTWLSOUTH ELEVATION "' _CT-TEIS � (FROM LA JOLLA) wam.m. . U }� Z �JIT L— SOUTH ELEVATION(REAR) --— ,w,�. LLJ - - scxF .< , -o 1 12 ��� L SCPLE:1/d"=1'/J' S z Ln _ - -" o 90 ❑ j ,. €@ ® a LI w-.,� ,,,E 1 ❑❑ a j f� I1 .nom R I, SaT_11 ---- --- j CCC -r= I E_ EA5T ELEVATION(51DE) _ xoi_ii< . -o• n _ 5' . v -1 Va'=l- . 833 L a PA2015-122 Almlhmenl PC s.Pns,ect Flan — .ti PIZ] S'k- - .,,,"a. — . vim. ..... ' laITT ,v �wua ,ns 1 PTH 4 u, . �,,.• €,_ „ ,,, -- - - - s w a zV w SECTION /1 €SECTION . sec na^-e-a' ,L>.> se+L=_:va^-ra yi.3 L t�_ w _ L✓ _ —_ '� - _ _ -- Tl- mall o -3) - a s � I wa r aet �ryI f 1�1 m t S S" IY v SECTION SECTIOxnLe���� �.o N n np 3 SCALE'1/a"_1'n' - SCALE Va'_1b' �3 A3 PA2015-122 Alla�menl PC s.Pns,ect Flan 13 �� - 11,32 - - -all I Is q a sAI In-ns � Me. ., mss.->.s�,,.e .c3.. , �� ', �:.�ha. wa - W - i z SEC�ON ti� i•ti- A- W �Ai_e•114 a s -o 5ECTION n € LL SCALE:Va'-1-0' Jna.< EL1E:✓a'-pJ - l/1 �_ W _ S z nj AJAIII Ln I I .. a. —« ga K 11 15 c z21 _ C wve rl I �.. M1:��� �• ,��u..,— SECTION Ye e_ I- _a. �l SECTION e a /� � 4 >LE:Ve'a1-0' BCALE:Ve-I:G' pAzols-1zz ..T.p.a-P'.pl.- PRECISE GRADING PLAN Sa�![ON n THE TROESHRRESIDENCE ymNMw.�.re ]Dd I.F JOLLA ORWE,NEWPORT BEACH - Awawaa.rs n:t 8�� LE6 - mhq. ryy umxm.orwaw.esrw..esamuewaaaerhn. s Yg fbq.� "' 1. Rr mI EEF— —T­ bF. E mwmm. r.,,m: wr .,e,t,.,.. a^',•8 rNa:.a..mao:..rmeaa.:an<Ba S i .n,.a.N .,xm— ..„ E F°R NET'mvmuss.vnnrsououww[o VIC➢5N MTP NETYAIDY WILv MIIYCRAUTICN .u,[,oxoua.vncn¢,[rmmoewovm,[mr[nm.mmvw. ONE AND OBE NLSPECTED BY TIEPS UNceN A SEPARATE ET vv m va 9A W BEARASv: EARTHWCCE ESTGMFIE: m_ umwmxuu[wunasmm[mn¢wm[mmn mwmoraum'[ uwm.mevM3 41 nuoevnn .nmm BEEILNMAA(xF arc C R awnnm[mamrvemw: mu.nnrtven wwm.m. :aru.rwe MLSC9UREW5 NOTES:W MR mn uuuaarnxwawu nrvvrtwwm LEGAL OESmID N :ru wmrrmx.Ex.nom..am:N,monsm N.wE y mm� m w 4N mn, x Nm m. �. ».. c c FT .rv.w . o .ea.¢x,. ww EOLE EN6INEEP: ¢.. ®u nx. •:°ee,m wax.weu.Em,me..ne "P n ear. .um[e:mm¢o[ru..:grtrmuworq •uamun ENGENEEE NOTL.TO OWNS roNIMRORa ARLf 6lECl: oWNET,i °:,e`"+°.,,1°'r.°°m`¢.:'aa+[>aaz+u wnRwoRmm'°..rtv ce.ummre au a ..nm ..aQe wuc.s nmmusaow.,uuwwaanrtrwrm[enanxru2mwmx,xemt EOM EN01JEE9'AND 6EOIGGTSTS[ERTBR[ATTON' mm LO.amseop _ ermrem.:u wrto� .xrzwnvss.s.nRam.remmsr..,ms. •a.o¢ewuwnwnanrtam.:. ss ,mem a�,e a ®.e sa xo' vem x,.wmmcreuu. e6 mN r om.ee.v.vry :..auwa.w....ssom.w.r<m:.,svrws..maw.vrme � e m�mn nrm..mmm..mmaem¢Om�noa.:�a,�N®.,..N.m da�.,�1 A. SE . aEm.,,no®.rmrEemmEe[wmunarvorNavm[:ae.¢rm.:o., w D NBPUN IA— -C-1_ a5 vazo55-�2z atternmam vice-vrgerapiacs. wF t wnr. � DEffRmSOI.' I`` �'r2—\ /J/ � vnw-n.>_m ��x auv w. w.anwa .. uxwn..xu.ew Olimh AaMam W. n +a�Ertwravn.camw m tN'0 ww •.� � •�G °\'/„ �� fP" — f DFT.ILL A'w� aueenn .wum. w wmmvz . [' e Vy. Lumummnuwnrt.mrs.nx auT IV Ro u,..�• `j v1' �m.amm '"�. �- _ � w,.u..neea �g®a— ar �:\ � �sn�a ��aw¢vmmum.'miv mz�eo.wevn. w•� ��i.[�n. M u�wuwvwncnou.mae[m[[x[a�[vrp nceSECRIXJ Bw _ �. § T ,Ali s x� �p� � •� ��.+w:.sa.0 � I ��� y AAB qJ GdCE SE7RON/� 4 y uauvw eeaasx .s D 769 - /aa.irvee uiw �, •u 'L ��xa.m 9 sF�ory cc som awti£ 9 ucnarvD a ,D za as '^• Feel C-2 1s6 �5 1 PA2o1Si7P MCTmeM Pce-Prgect Plere. CATALWA DR. l_ A�l a«xo 7 — .y tl li id4.ets ,.W' o] au� —dl LrIL rA, CA\ i(dt TGPGGRAPHIC MAP ; —_____ LA JDLLADR . suoxiwvue xort: i z 5 5 s � �- < l } \ ƒ ) , \�Or ( 04 x®� : � , �`� • � � � PA 015-122 AIIeTmeM vc e-vrgectPI.- 3 4 LP XITYT'WL WCiM'IM4V gi N YLLdCA +�_.r u v r.+.•..r_.... ru ._.._r+_w..._..0 ....�._ ...........r i.r.n.�.�..�.�._�.. _ u.,—Y LTIJLY'IW�Y.IIWFNI.r.l..ra [mi Y Y1®lMM®W.LWp r++�..T�.�.rvr wnm,n u anuvpe aeua .�.., CU a V C s CL3 e .y 6] - Li L h O L Ba PRMSE 6RRD[fK PL.W �5 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Woodco Investment Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Company, Inc. Troeshnce (PA2015-122) www.woodeoinv.com COMMUNITY DEC 0 9 2015 0�_11_DEVELOPMENT OF NFNPOR� 0tiP "D" DAY 1941 BUT NOW 2015 RE : ACTIVITY MD 2015 0008 VA 2015 0003 I THINK I WROTE ON THIS ON AN EARLIER DATE AFTER I ' D VISITED THE AREA, CAN'T SEE WHERE LA JOLLA IS AN ' ASSET' SIDE FOR A CLOSE TO 5000 SO, FT, RESIDENCE, CAN'T THEY CONVERT OR AUGMENT THE CATALINA SIDE TO ACCOMODATE OR DEMOLISH AND RE-BUILD? "MODIFICATION PERMIT TO ALLOW A PROPERTY THAT IS NONCONFORMAING TO ADD MORE THAN 10%, , . , , " IF IT DOSEN'T CONFORM NOW WHY ARE WE AUGMENTING SOMETHING THAT' S IN CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS? WE OWN 3 SETS OF DUPLEXES ON THE CATALINA ST, PORTION AND CAN'T SEE WHY THIS SHOULD BE PERMITTED. VERY TR LY YOURS, WOOD WIS R W 00 DCO) �� 3740 Campus Drive • Suite #100• Newport Beach, CA 92660-2639 • TEL: (949) 756-8557 • FAX: (949) 833-0153 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - DECEMBER 17, 2015 Attachments: i mg-Z16125551-0001.pdf PLANNING COMMISSION—DECEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 2b:ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED TROESH RESIDENCE (PA2015-122) From: gk keeling [mailto:arkeeli(olomail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 6:29 PM To: Van Patten, Jason Subject: Fwd: Project File #PA2015-122 ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: Ogburn,John<John.Ogburn(&colliers.com> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Subject: Project File#PA2015-122 To: "kkramerAnewportbeachca.gov" <klcramer(a()newportbeachca.gov>, "tbrown(i newportbeachca.gov" <tbrownjp ewportbeachca.gov>, "pkoettingka newportbeachca.gov" <pkoettingka,newportbeachca.gov>, "bhillgren(anewportbeachca.gov" <bhillgren(a)newportbeachca.gov>, "rlawler(a),newportbeachca.gov" <rlawler(a),newportbeachca.gov>, "eweigandna,newportbeachca.gov" <eweigandna,newportbeachca.gov>, "pzak ,newportbeachca.gov" <pzak(&newportbeachca.gov> Cc: "mllear(&,,aol.com" <mllear(a),aol.com>, "jim (a,att.nct" <jimY9j9att.net>, "nglitt( ,gmail.com" <nglitt(cb,gmail.com>, "Bill Anderson (bill.anderson(a),coldwellbanker.com)" <bill.andersongcoldwellbanker.com>, "danabelinda(agyahoo.com" <danabelindagyahoo.com>, "gavinsacks(aayahoo.com" <gavinsackskyahoo.com>, "mbooth760(a( yahoo.com" <mbooth760kyahoo.com>, "bensonmike70(a gmail.com" <bensonmike70Agmail.com>, "jasonsfinney(a),yahoo.com" <jasonsfinney(q),yahoo.com>, "Grkeell(- ,gmail.com" <Grkec1IAgmai1.com>1 "scottn ag rrettna,hotmail.com" <scottngarrettna,hotmail.com>, "dun(a,sbcglobal.net" <dun[7a sbcglobal.net>, "Ogburn, John" <John.Ogburn(a),,colliers.com>, Amy Ogburn <ogbumamy(a earthlink.net> Dear Planning Commission Members, Attached please find our communities thoughts, concerns, objections, and documentations regarding the above referenced project. Please note and take into the highest level of consideration, that while we are technically a portion of the Newport Heights community, this particular street and neighborhood is by no means the same as the rest of the defined area known as such. La Jolla Dr. and Catalina Dr. do not enjoy the flat lots, wide alleys and broad streets of the rest of the area. We do not have homes anywhere near the size of the one proposed. We do not have garage access to many homes in the area. We do not have many of the character traits typically found in a CDM or Peninsula R2 property. And we do not illegally cut down city owned trees just so we can expand our property (can't help but wonder what some Environmental Groups would think of that?). 1 December 14,2015 To:Members of the Planning Commission From: Concerned Residents of La Jolla Drive and lower Catalina Drive RE:Project File #PA2015-122 (Troesh Residence) Sent via email Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you for your impartial adjudication of the above-referenced case. The October 81' Planning Commission hearing raised several questions and concerns that were not addressed by the applicant and do not appear to be clearly explained in the Municipal Code. Given the significant impacts of the proposed project on parking, traffic, public safety, and the character of the neighborhood, we wish to reiterate them here for your consideration in advance of the December 171h continuation hearing. I. Title 20 Considerations Title 20 of the Zoning Code states that the "Zoning Code is intended to...promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social, and economic vitality of neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City" (emphasis added). Several public-safety related concerns regarding the narrowness of La Jolla Drive were voiced during the October 81h hearing, including the difficulty for emergency vehicles to navigate the street and the fact that automobile traffic has to pass right by existing property boundaries with no sidewalks or other buffers to protect pedestrians. The area in front of the proposed new residence is one of the narrowest bottlenecks on an already tight street. Moreover, the proposed residence is completely out of keeping with the character of one of Newport Beach's quaintest and most unique neighborhoods. As a Commission member stated himself on October 8th, presumably referring to the neighborhood's mature trees, terraced gardens, quaint homes, narrow streets, open views and lush landscaping, the area feels more "like Laguna Beach or Hollywood Hills" than it does a typical Newport Beach neighborhood. According to Zillow.com, the average house size on La Jolla Drive is 2,056 SF. The median home size is 2,167 SF (see Attachment A for detail). The proposed residence, at 4,551 square feet, would be 2.21x larger than the average home on La Jolla Drive, and 2.1x larger than the median. It would be nearly 17%larger than largest existing house in the neighborhood, and the density on its lot would be completely out of scale with that of the surrounding homes. There are only three houses on the entire street that exceed 3,000 square feet (3,120 SF, 3,647 SF, and 3,900 SF), and those homes have an average lot size of 7,166 square feet. The largest homes therefore have an average FAR of 0.5x lot area, ensuring ample setbacks and lots of open space. When combined with the 2,400 SF existing home at 336 Catalina, the total built-out square footage (existing+proposed) on the subject lot would be 6,951. The lot size for 336 Catalina is 6,185 SF,equating to an FAR for the existing and proposed residences of 1.12x. That is 2.23x more dense than the other large homes on the street, and would allow only minimal open space that, per the submitted plans, would mostly be covered by decks and balconies. II. R2 Zoning and Subdivision Considerations It was noted on October 81h that there are several existing homes with driveways on the north side of La Jolla Drive proximate to the subject property. The question was therefore raised on October 81h: why not allow another one? In response, it should be noted that in all these other instances, the original R2 lots appear to have been either subdivided into two distinct lots (one with access from Catalina Dr. and the other from La Jolla), or condominiumized. In effect, two unique structures were built to cater to two entirely separate ownerships. Per the City, subdivision is not an option for the subject property. Furthermore, given the non-conforming parking of the existing structure at 336 Catalina, condominiumization of the subject lot is not permissible either. Other R2 zoned neighborhoods in Newport Beach (eg, Corona del Mar Village and the Balboa Peninsula) feature alleyway access to the second structure or shared ingress/egress from a single driveway to service both structures. We are not aware of any other neighborhood in the City where R2 zoning allows for two primary, front entrances on two separate streets. To allow this would be a back-door route to approving a subdivision when none is permissible per current code. The proposed second driveway is not compliant with the Code given the nonconforming parking at the existing structure. Thus the question: Why should the Commission grant a zoning variance that would create a de facto subdivision where none is allowed — especially given the traffic and parking problems noted on La Jolla Drive, the Title 20 concerns about preserving the character of this unique neighborhood, and all the other complicating and negative impacts of the proposed dwelling? And if subdivision is not allowed, why should the applicant, who already has a valid primary route of ingress and egress at 336 Catalina Drive, be granted another (nonconforming) one? When asked, planning staff stated that a second route of egress is required for fire safety of the new structure. The neighbors would in turn ask: why approve a non-conforming driveway when doing so could impact emergency vehicle access to the whole neighborhood? Why not enforce the Code as it stands? Isn't the City's mandate to serve the needs of the community over that of the individual? III. Property Values and Quality of Life Considerations In the October 81h hearing, it was stated clearly and on record by both the Planning staff- member and the applicant's representative that an intent of the proposed development is to convert the existing house on Catalina Drive to rental housing. Is the R2 zoning designation intended to allow for the deliberate addition of new rental housing to the neighborhood? Newport Heights is a luxury neighborhood and it would seem that an application for new rental or multifamily housing would be frowned upon. The subject property does not have a multifamily(RM or RMD) zoning. Adding to the rental housing stock will detract from the value of neighboring properties. Moreover, some neighboring homes will suffer specific and material value decline as the proposed structure will directly impact their views (including, in some cases, ocean views), and their privacy. It should be noted that the applicants have already done significant damage to the character of the neighborhood by illegally removing several mature trees from the City's right-of-way along La Jolla Drive. These include a eucalyptus tree estimated to have been nearly 50 feet high, that the City diligently maintained using taxpayer dollars each year. Please see Attachment B for before and after photos referencing the illegal removal. You will note that the tree stumps sit firmly on City property,which extends fifteen feet back from La Jolla Drive. This type of disregard for the neighbors and City regulations should not be rewarded with a discretionary approval of the proposed project. IV. Setting A Precedent There are at least four R2 lots fronting both La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive that lay out similarly to the subject property (ie, with ample land to add a second structure with primary frontage on La Jolla Drive). The neighbors have voiced significant and well reasoned concerns regarding the ability of La Jolla Drive to handle the traffic, parking and density impacts from just this one project. By approving PA2015-122, the Planning Commission will be setting a precedent for other opportunistic owners or developers to pursue similar projects on the remaining R2 parcels. The result would be to overwhelm the unique balance of aesthetics and functionality that defines the neighborhood. This would be a great loss not just to the local residents, but to the City of Newport Beach itself. The street is called La Jolla ("the Jewel") for a reason. V. Summary The neighborhood opposition to the proposed development is not a simple NIMBY response to an unwelcome development. Instead, it reflects a firm resolve to defend the unique character of our neighborhood while protecting the safety, privacy, property values and convenience of our residents. The applicant does not have a "by right' ability to build the project — rather they need you, the Planning Commission, to grant them the required permit and variance at your discretion. The project is poorly conceived, and the applicant has already acted in ways that show a basic disregard for what makes our neighborhood special. By allowing this project to move forward, you would be setting a precedent that could lead to substantial further harm. Planning Commission should exercise its Title 20 mandate and deny the application. Sincerely, Concerned Residents of La Jolla Drive and lower Catalina Drive (Signatures Attached) ATTACHMENT A Property Size and Density La Jolla Drive,Newport Beach,CA SOURCE:Zillow.com House Address House SF Lot size FAR 202 La Jolla 2,481 206 La Jolla 2,603 210 La Jolla 1,280 214 La Jolla 2,702 218 La Jolla 1,290 222 La Jolla 1,375 225 La Jolla 2,400 226 La Jolla 1,022 229 La Jolla 1,534 230 La Jolla 1,325 233 La Jolla 2,083 237 La Jolla 1,534 241 La Jolla 2,655 245 La Jolla 2,251 249 La Jolla 1,475 301 La Jolla 2,304 303 La Jolla 3,647 8,300 0.44 305 La Jolla 2,397 308 La Jolla 1,800 309 La Jolla 2,358 314 La Jolla 3,900 6,229 0.63 316 La Jolla 938 318 La Jolla 1,141 330 La Jolla 3,120 6,969 0.45 341 La Jolla 1,300 345 La Jolla 2,550 AVERAGE SF: 2,056 Proposed house SF: 4,551 Size relative to La Jolla avg. 2.21x 300 block avg SF: 2,314 Avg FAR for houses>3000 SF 0.50 336 Catalina lot 6,185 existing house 2,400 existing+proposed 6,951 potential FAR 1.12 FAR relative to>3000 SF avg. 2.23x _ • C" '���yrV�E'RpNt' tit r v,ev 1 . 4 M w Attachment B: Before/After Pictures of Illegal Tree Removal,336 Catalina Drive. May 2011 vs. Present. Source:Google Street View. .Qmm•..wns.•�..�+_. ,pO161wrq-W^^•.b_a OIID:n.i..<d,x..pcnE. . YOUGEa S .`►j - •a 6n � .. I.� l� 336 Catalina Dr. Newport Beach,CA-Amazing Backyard a Tour. 565 views ,Then why not try to save? ti - -moi r ' .! 4•. _ 1 NE WRp I � V RTBL Y ~ o N A m v Ap t CEO NFVrynR�BLVp 1 9£tt w 5tt tet $ 0 04 1 °jaL �i N m a tt u v� �4 911 Y g4t4t i�D(e�Dpfl � 1 9 Un y1 v yqt y5t `O£ y1 �t �9 O +i 1 yKt OO£ OL �' y1 w0 Gq1 qpG LOG gOt y4 0 1 a G ' O Si 2 C V� C y w00 V, 300 �4 IF� BGG �% V— 1853 y s£C rl V 44 Opt V5£ T A � 2949 � 8p< �{ 2948 �`" �y£ "Vv \� 2,O. � C" Sg4f 1y L4£ L �� 9gry y 0 2944 }� 2940 1 2936 O wA qOp y0e 14 3 2932 O 2928 += N 1 r 2924 Sia yya -� d 2920 m > o Od� 4 � 6Z 164)4 06�6uaf4 Print Name C Signature Address Print Name Sigriature Address Z-6L Print Name Signature r Address Print Natie Sign e Address C Print Name� Signature ig/' -4e'z v '� Address Care.( 8orlan �� � Print Name Signature '1/0 / Sahf7� awaQde. lVe&04d-� each 4Z�lv3 Address Print Name ,-�'"--'S�rgnatu. 7� ( /4 Li V 4 Address 4. Print Name Signature Address N9 BENCaj Print Name Signature 303 (la D,-. . N . 9. . Address Print Name Sig r Address Print Name Signa e 5!5c) 3 Address Rr� � D Print Name Signature C-) 0. Address Print Name SigSig an�tur�~ 3 �l 3 s ,j3,q y . 7,1 Address 11I �j L t its �ti C� Print Name Signature 3_1 ) A-o Address ' Print Name Signature Address Printame n (Sig�nnatnur^e f� Addre�s Print Name Signature 340 ("' ATAI /1l A 17R• , Nc� Rt Address V 111 Print Nade Signature �� 339 L� -46 �.; � � �� A)eL"� 6r4 &64 Address S� Print Name ig re 339 L lin 115. Address 2av'O t, , 2�' Print Name Signature Cz�,� (✓�� 72 Address ��-- /�#fj ' rJ 7,�Ccc S Print Name Address Print Name Signature Address Print Name Sig a re Address I Print Name Si atu Address Print Name Signature Address 1 'A� Print Name Signature LLk Address Print Name Signature E,,- Address 1- .,Print Name Name Signatu ly Address �c',T- l C o / Print Name Signature Address What we do have is a tight knit neighborhood who have worked out our parking issues, our traffic issues, and many other issues that come with our unique little slice of Newport Beach. We do have each other's backs and stand united against this project which would not only set precedence for many other expansions but also permanently destroy the "CHARACTER" of our neighborhood. A number of us will be at the meeting tomorrow but the very suspicious move of the meeting to the first night of the Christmas Boat Parade prevents some from doing so. With all due respect please vote NO on this variance. Regards, John O. John J. Ogburn Senior Vice President Investor Services I USA Dir+1 949 724 5584 1 Mob+1 949 887 8484 Main +1 949 724 5500 1 Fax+1 949 724 5684 John.Ogbum(t�colliers.com I Click to Download V-Card Colliers International 3 Park Plaza I Suite 1200 1 Irvine, CA 92614 1 USA www.colliers.com coflierm IIATtOWA W1 View the current issue of Knowledge Leader. 2 Planning Commission - December 1 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence • Catalina Drive • 333 Jolla e.. 1 aemn [• e•e l Planning Commission �► Public Hearin Modification Permit and Variance PAzol 122 ��- g� December 17, zo15 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Vicinity Map Ok it 35 Avon s � i �ti0 r /r'- �b ♦ 77i 12/17/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Modification Permit Add more than so% to property with nonconforming parking . Relief due to physical and practical difficulties. 12/17/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 3 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) � z Variance a a.C'dt/FORNP Wall and guardrail greater than 42" in height in front setback ( La Jolla) . Relief due to topography and City Standard for driveway design . 12/17/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 4 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 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 ` UNE OF EXISTING GRADE LINE OF NEW GRADE 12/17/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 5 Front Elevation u���ini�aununnini Fv���-=��-•v���-ofA�•-= `. `. �. ���1��� . . - . anance tail hn�wno��i ® ® ® ® ® ® sao,.�o �0�0® tj •• OF •• FLOW WNE AT CURB ENTRY WALKWAY —Ts:;,s FROM r•IVEWAY 'r-EASTING GRADE 20 • r TO • rBUILDING • To r ar • r Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Public Comments F General concerns Overburden parking along La Jolla Drive Traffic Neighborhood compatibility Safety 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 7 La Jolla Drive t: fie '` $ tf r ( ' ;•;� � ,�F+ �.e,� I� III IIT � ' �.. ! .(.� . w^ S fT ' �f'T •� �' �' '��•A N�,..� t � La Jolla Drive r. y. ffi o„ F j . / 11 F 1 d Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) La Jolla Drive -r s r � 12/17/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) La Jolla Drive }Rti• � ST"• � Rw9�il +. �'r 1 i4 his s's �rsr4 . 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 11 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Public Comments Overburden parking along La Jolla Drive Existing parking practices will remain . Design alternatives Pedestrian path from Catalina Drive. Set dwelling back to provide driveway in front of garage. 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 12 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Setback 15' 5' 25'-T Q01 El Q , s w�wxa+.0 u^ w.a -------------------- C --- — - r��__ ------ - 1C� i - ! troaww i E- I jie.rnxftw.. *� pow ❑ I T ELEVATION(BIDE) I 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 13 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Public Comments ■ Traffic Minimal trips generated (lo avg . daily) . Varying routes of travel remain . Neighborhood Compatibility Dwelling complies with setbacks, height, floor area limit, parking requirements. Vehicular access is consistent with properties on block. 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 14 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Driveway Access Iry \ J- SM `Subject Property fir• y}` . JPkCOD a't w Q °moi 44 t. ✓� �J`" 1 15 12/17/2015 ' r�' Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Public Comments Safety Emergency access remains the same . No indication of access issues per PD and Fire . Condition No . 9 - construction management plan . Condition No . so - hours of construction . 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 16 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) ■ Mod and Variance preserves ability to provide a second dwelling unit and access from La Jolla Drive . No visual obstruction created by wall and guardrail . Construction management plan will minimize impacts during construction . 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 17 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Condition No . io Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include a construction schedule, identify phases of construction, number of trucks for each phase of construction, the number of vehicles driving to the site during each phase of construction, parking arrangements during construction, address how haulers will access the site, diiscssi^n e f nreje � phas; nry, n-,rr�i ing �ontc diirinnll�j .., ,Structien, aRtiipatt`thaul reutes, and address minimization of construction disruptions to the adjacent right-of-way. Storage, construction operations, and dumpsters shall be contained on private property. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan . 12/17/2015 Community Development Department - Planning Division j.8 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2c: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 22) Condition No . 22 Any closure of streets or parking areas in association with construction of the dwelling requires a temporary street and sidewalk closure permit from the Public Works Department. Coordination and notification to all impacted residents shall be provided . Traffic control plans and detour routes will be required at the discretion of the Public Works Department. 12/17/2015 Community Development Department- Planning Division 19 r 46 y�N *i N, w a ti 4 M I _ For more information contact: - Jason Van Patten 949-644-3234 jvanpatten@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Troesh Residence 333 La Jolla Drive Newport Beach, CA VARIANCE REQUEST Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Garage and Driveway i 1i GARAGE DN RIGHT OF WAY DRIVEWAY EXISTING CURB Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Partial Front Elevation from Street -- iii um �� Scope of Variance TfTTTT - 4- TOP OFOURB,75.oD FLOW UNE AT CURB 14a L i IENTRY WALKWAY 14771 STEPS FROM DRNEWAY E7CISTING GRADE ,ZO 6Z� (BEYOND) TO ENTRY(BEYOND) AT BUILDING - I — STEPS FROM ENTRY WALK TO 51DEYARO WALK(BEYOND) - 3 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Driveway Elevation W 71 71 CONCRETE CURB 12s.o0 a O G E 124 DRNEWAY BEYOND 121.00 NO®BASE OF WALLEE RETAINING WALL NG LINE OF EXISTING GRAD NG LINE OF NEW GRADE 4 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Residence 20' from Property Line Tin Q rn M EAST ELEVATION(SIS Q 5 Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) 325 La Jolla Drive Ae a1 r '264 Ow Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) 325 La Jolla Drive N 1 J Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) 241 La Jolla Drive Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) 249 La Jolla Drive Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Area Overhead with Property Lines 77 LNF • j.�" � i� '� AFF Planning Commission - December 17, 2015 Item No. 2d: Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Six Through Lots Ac I♦ h1l` I � - oo T 4 .z �. 14 v*