The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005 - VARIANCE FOR RAISED HARDSCAPE/DRIVEWAY AND MODIFICATION PERMIT FOR ADD >10% - 336 Catalina Dr RESOLUTION NO. 2005 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 public hearing to November 5, 2015. 6. On November 5, 2015, the public hearing was continued at the request of the applicant to December 17, 2015. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 2 of 5 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 public hearing 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 public hearing. 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, based upon the oral and written evidence provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission was unable to make the following findings: Modification Permit Findinq: A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. The proposed project is inconsistent in scale with existing properties nearby that generally contain less floor area. 2. The proposed project will result in vehicular access from two points of entry, La Jolla Drive, and Catalina Drive, and is inconsistent with existing development in the neighborhood that provide vehicular access from a single point of entry. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: B. 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 Opposed to Finding: 1. Alternatives do exist that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less detriment to surrounding owners and the neighborhood. The scope of the project could be altered to provide additional off-street parking. The proposed garage could be setback further from the La Jolla Drive property line to provide additional parking in 10-15-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 3 of 5 front of the garage, off the street. A greater setback off La Jolla Drive, a reduction in square footage, or a lower dwelling could reduce impacts from the street and to neighboring properties. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: C. 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 Opposed to Finding: 1. Granting of the modification results in a dwelling that provides vehicular access from La Jolla Drive, which is a narrow right-of-way that allows for parking on both sides of the street. The proposed development will impact on-street parking and traffic through La Jolla Drive and will be detrimental to nearby properties and the neighborhood that travel through the street. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Variance Finding: D. 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 Opposed to Finding: 1. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning district. A second dwelling could be built with modifications to the existing dwelling that fronts Catalina Drive. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: E. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. The variance is only necessary to provide vehicular access from La Jolla Drive and is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant. The applicant is not deprived of substantial property rights without the variance because alternatives do exist that could provide similar benefits to the applicant. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. 10-15-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 4 of 5 Finding: F. 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 Opposed to Finding: 1 . Granting of the variance will constitute a special privilege by allowing the subject property to maintain vehicular access from two streets, La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive, which is inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district that take access from one street. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: G. 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 Opposed to Finding: 1 . Granting of the variance will allow vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. The additional vehicles attributed to residents of the dwelling or guests of the dwelling will add to parking on the street, which will be detrimental to persons residing in the neighborhood due to the already narrow width of the right-of-way. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. 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 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Pa e5of5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. AYES: Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Weigand NOES: Brown, Zak ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BY: — A - oy hairm n BY: ar yP Secret 10-15-2013