HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190523_PC_Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
May 23, 2019
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT: Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Variance No. VA2019-002
SITE LOCATION: 1113 Kings Road
APPLICANT: Carolyn Reed
OWNER: Carolyn Reed
PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner
949-644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
Demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new 10,803-
square-foot, single-family residence and a 1,508-square-foot, four-car garage. The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow portions of the upper level roof and deck, and
portions of a an office and covered patio on the main level of the proposed home to
exceed the allowed height limit due to the steep topography of site.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find this project categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-015 approving Variance No. VA2019-002 (Attachment
No. PC 1).
11
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE Single-Unit Residential
Detached (RS-D)
Single-Unit Residential
(R-1) Single-family residence
NORTH RS-D R-1 Single-family residences
SOUTH General Commercial
(CG)
Commercial General
(CG) Car wash and auto sales facility
EAST RS-D R-1 Single-family residences
WEST RS-D R-1 Single-family residences
33
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE44
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting and Background
The subject property is a hillside lot located along the south side of Kings Road in the
single-family residential neighborhood of Cliff Haven above and visible from Coast
Highway. Surrounding properties include single-family residences to the west, north, and
east. Commercial properties are located down slope south of the parcel in the Mariners’
Mile commercial corridor along West Coast Highway. Similar to other residences on the
south side of Kings Road, the property is developed with the front yard facing Kings Road
and the rear of the property abutting the commercial lots down slope.
The property is currently developed with a two -level, 3,000-square-foot, single-family
residence with attached, 1285-square-foot, four-car garage parking. The residence and
a two-car garage were originally constructed in 1954. The structure is one story above
Kings Road and one level below the street. A second two-car garage for recreational-
vehicle (RV) storage was constructed in 1976 and it received the approval of a variance
(Variance No. 1053) from the Planning Commission authorizing portions of the garage to
exceed the 24-foot flat roof height limit. At the location of the RV garage, a gully exists
within the lot that slopes significantly from north to south and from east to west. The
garage appears as an approximately 13-foot-high, one-story structure from Kings Road,
however, due to the slope of the gully under the garage, the garage measures
approximately 31.5 feet from existing grade at the southeast corner of the garage.
The adjacent single-family residence to the east at 1101 Kings Road is also
topographically impacted by the gully feature and has been granted two variances in the
past (VA1034 in 1973 and VA1150 in 1989). The variances authorized a maximum
structure height of 45 feet 6 inches and deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from
the existing grade at the rear of the structures.
Project Description / Variance Request
The applicant desires to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 10,803-
square-foot, single-family residence and 1,508-square-foot, four-car garage parking. The
residence would consist of three levels: a 4,177-square-foot daylighting basement level,
a 3,361-square-foot main level, and a 3,265-square-foot upper level. From the Kings
Road street frontage, the residence would appear as two stories. The daylighting
basement level would generally only be visible from the property to the east and from
West Coast Highway to the south.
The residence has been designed with multiple step backs at the upper levels to maintain
a structure height that follows the natural slope of the lot. However, due to the
topographical constraint of the gully feature at the northeastern corner of the lot that
55
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 4
extends to the south generally along the eastern property line that affects the siting and
design of the proposed construction , the applicant is requesting a variance to allow
portions of the roof to exceed the 29-foot height limit for sloped roofs and a portion of a
deck and associated railing to exceed the 24-foot height limit for decks and flat roofs. The
differences in height limits for the various components of the structure are as follows:
Upper level roof eaves: 1.13 feet, 1.29 feet, and 1.85 feet above 29-foot sloped
roof height limit
Upper level deck and rails: 4.47 feet and 2.32 feet above 24-foot flat roof height
limit
Main level office eave: 1.74 feet above 29-foot sloped height limit
Main level covered patio eave: 3.07 feet above 29-foot sloped roof height limit
Figure 1 below highlights the portions of roof and deck that exceed allowed height limits.
Figure 2 includes three-dimensional renderings of the proposed residence illustrating the
portions of the structure that exceed the 29-foot height limit plane.
The applicant’s project description and justification is included as Attachment No. PC 3.
The project plans (Attachment No. PC 4) provide additional information on the site
topography as well as the location, height, and layout of the proposed structure.
DISCUSSION
Analysis
General Plan and Zoning Code
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Single -Unit Residential
Detached (RS-D) and the Zoning Code designates the site as Single-Unit Residential (R-
1), which are intended to provide for areas appropriate for single -family residential
dwelling units on a single lot. The proposed development is consistent with these
designations and use of the property would not change. With the exception of the
requested variance for height, the proposed residence complies with all other applicable
development standards of the R-1 Zoning Districts as illustrated in Table 1 below:
66
Figure 1 – Roof Plan and Section Exhibit - Height Exceedances
7
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 5
7
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 6
88
Figure 2 – 3D Rendering Illustration of Height Exceedances (Yellow Plane Represents 29-Foot Height Limit)
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 7
Table 1: Zoning Development Standards
Development
Standard
Required Existing Proposed
Setbacks (min.)
Front
Rear
Left Side (West)
Right Side (East)
10’
10’
4’
4’
11’
98’
5’
4’
10’
85.5’
5’
4’
Height (max.)
Flat
Sloped
24’
29’
31.5’ (Variance 1053)
29’
28.47’ (deck rail) (1)
32.07’ (2)
Open Space (min.) 2,177 sq. ft. Exceeded 18,130 sq. ft.
3rd Floor Area (max.) 2,177 sq. ft. No 3rd Floor 411 sq. ft.(3)
Floor Area Limit
(max.)
29,024 sq. ft. 4,285 sq. ft. 12,311 sq. ft.
Parking (min.) 3 garage
spaces
4 garage spaces 4 garage spaces
(1) Variance requested to allow 26 sq. ft. of deck and deck rail to exceed the 24-foot flat roof height limit.
(2) Variance requested to allow 327 sq. ft. of sloping roofs to exceed the 29-foot height limit.
(3) Per NBMC Section 20.48.180.A.3.a, on sloping lots the Director shall determine which story is the third floor for
implementing third floor limits. The upper level functions primarily as a two-story element as viewed from Kings Road
and the property to the west; however, where located above the gully feature, portions of the upper level bathrooms
and teen room function and appear as a third level to the property to the east and are calculated as such. These areas
have also been designed to comply with third floor step back of two additional feet from side setback.
Grade Establishment and Building Height
Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.30.050 (Grade
Establishment), the building height on a lot that slopes more than five percent is measured
from a plane established by determining the elevation of the lot at five evenly spaced
points along each of the two side property line s and connecting each of the points along
a side property line with the corresponding point on the opposite side property line, as
shown in Figure 3. On lots that slope an average of twenty percent or greater, or on
irregularly shaped or sloping lots, the Director may require that additional points of
elevation be provided. Due to the significant slope variations of the lot due to the gully
feature of the lot, five additional points were added in locations to more closely follow the
existing grade profile of the hillside. Figure 4 below illustrates the established grade plane
from the site topographic survey provided in Sheet s 2 and 3 of Attachment PC 4. These
additional points were included because the use of the Code described method does not
reflect the existing topographic profile of the site and further restricted the ability to design
a structure.
99
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 8
Figure 3 - Grade Establishment Example
Figure 4 - Grade Establishment for Subject Property
1010
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 9
Required Variance Findings
A variance is a request to waive or modify certain standards when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings,
topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards
otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. A variance can only be
granted to maintain parity between the variance site and nearby properties in the same
zoning district to avoid the granting of special privileges to one property.
Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances – Findings and Decision), the
Planning Commission must make certain findings in order to approve a variance. Staff
believes sufficient facts exist to support the variance requests and they are set forth in
the draft resolution for project approval (Attachment No. PC 1). Below is a summary of
facts in support of the required 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 site is bluff top residential property that slopes north to south generally consistent
with other properties located along the south side of Kings Road; however, this particular
site is unique in that a deep gully severely constrains the northeastern c orner of the lot.
This gully is an unusual site feature that burdens the property with multiple sloping angles
and directions that does not generally apply to the other properties along Kings Road.
The rear portion of the proposed residence measures approximately 100 feet back from
the front property line along Kings Road. The slope differential and change in grade is
significant along the western boundary line of the residence as compared to the eastern
1111
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 10
property line where the gully feature is located. The change in existing grade along the
western boundary line is approximately five feet (five percent slope) along the proposed
length of the residence, whereas the change in existing grade along the eastern boundary
line is approximately 25.5 feet (25.5 percent slope) due to the gully feature.
The most significant change in grade along the eastern boundary actually occurs within
the first 67 feet of the lot as measured from the front property line, where the gully at its
deepest point (62.85 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 88]) is 26.5 feet
below the elevation of the front property line (89.3 feet NAVD 88), resulting in a steep
slope of 40 percent.
The lot also slopes in various directions from east to west. At the front setback line, the
difference in grade between the east property line and west property line is approximately
0.8 feet with a 1 percent slope up from west to east. However, a t the extreme depth of
the gully on the easterly property line (62.85 feet NAVD 88), the corresponding grade
measurement on the westerly property line is 20 feet higher (82.94 feet NAVD 88). At this
location the lots slopes down 22 percent from west to east.
This variation in topography of the lot presents a unique circumstance in comparison to
other properties in its vicinity that warrant the requested variance.
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;
The Zoning Code requires the height of structures to be measured from a grade plane
based on an approximation of the existing grade using several grade points. On sloping
lots, the height limit is intended to follow the slope of the established grade plane. It is
typical for properties on sloping lots to be designed with terracing foundations and roof
that typically maintain a two-level appearance within the allowed height envelope. Due to
the topographical constraint that the gully creates on this lot, including multiple slopes in
differing directions, strict compliance with the Zoning Code development standards
precludes the property owners from enjoying this same privilege of designing a two -level
terraced design across the buildable width of the lot.
1212
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 11
The entire front of the residence facing the street could be built to 29 feet in height with
sloping roofs without a variance. However, the front of the residence is designed to a
maximum height of 23.78 feet from existing grade at the front elevation and is the tallest
observed height as viewed from Kings Road. Due to th e sloped nature of the lot and
corresponding maximum height envelope, the first point of height exceedance occurs
down-slope away from Kings Road and 22 feet back from the front setback line (33 feet
from the curb). The height encroachments are not visually higher than any portion of the
residence as viewed from Kings Road because they are behind the complying roof
elements at the front of the building.
Modifying the proposed design to eliminate the height variance for enclosed living area
would require eliminating an office on the main level, located behind a compliant garage,
and eliminating or significantly reducing the size of an upper level closet, b athroom, and
teen room. Modifying the design to eliminate the height variance for the outdoor living
areas would require eliminating the roof cover over the deck behind the garage and office
on the main level and reducing the size of the upper level deck. The appearance of
structure as viewed from Kings Road would not change, but the functionality of the home
design would be impacted.
The granting of a variance provides relief from Zoning Code height calculations to allow
the residence to maintain comparable height across both the east and west sides of the
residence to improve and maintain functionality of the house design. It is not intended nor
does it in any way permit features or height increases beyond what can be built by right
elsewhere on the subject site where physical hardships due to topography are not
present.
The adjacent single-family residence to the east (1101 Kings Rd.), which is also impacted
by the topographic gully feature, has been granted two variances in the past (VA1034 in
1973 and VA1150 in 1989). It provided relief from the topographic constraint allowing the
home to be constructed. As viewed from Kings Road, the neighboring residence (100.72-
foot ridge elevation) is 11 feet lower in overall roof elevation than the proposed residence
(111.92-foot ridge elevation) due to the difference in existing grade from which these
residences are measured from. However, the neighboring property is more severely
impacted by the gully and the variances authorized a maximum structure height of 45 feet
6 inches and deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from existing grade. These
height limit exceedances are approximately 13.5 feet higher for the living area and 12 feet
higher for the deck than the proposed variance request.
3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant;
The granting of a variance for the preservation of the applicant’s rights to enjoy a
residence similar in style and character to the surrounding residences is necessary due
to the physical conditions of the subject property including varying topography with
1313
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 12
multiple slope grades in differing directions and the steepness of the grade . The eastern
side of the proposed residence extends a smaller distance away from Kings Road than
the western side of the residence due to of the constraining topographical features.
However, the granting of the variance due to the property slopes is necessary to maintain
functionality of the house design and by allowing the height increase for approximately
116 square feet of roof area over enclosed living areas and 211 square feet of roof area
over a covered patio area to exceed the 29-foot height limit. It would also allow 26 square
feet of deck and railing area to exceed the 24-foot flat roof height limit. Strict compliance
with the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of the substantial property right of
building a residence of uniform height across the subject site, a design that is enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. The variance is intended to permit
only what can be built by right elsewhere on the subject site where physical hardships
due to topography of the gully feature are not present.
To avoid the topographic constraint associated with the gully, the teen room, decks, and
covered patio features of the proposed residence would need to be setback
approximately an additional 15 feet from the easterly side setback line (19 feet from
easterly property line) to eliminate the need for the variance . This modification to the
design would effectively reduce the buildable width from approxima tely 90 percent of the
lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those locations.
The over-height areas of the residence are located over a gully feature that slopes
significantly in both a north-south direction, as well as east-west direction that creates a
challenge to design a residence that is functional and architecturally pleasing. The
granting of this variance allows the applicant to preserve and benefit from the
development of a residence that utilizes the entire buildable width of the lot simila r in style,
size, and character of surrounding multi-level homes in the vicinity.
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;
Each segment of Kings Road presents various differing degrees of slope topography, and
most properties are developed with homes and yards reflecting their specific topographic
constraints. It is appropriate to evaluate each residence in the immediate vicinity on a
case-by-case basis. In this case, the subject lot is more severely impacted than most
other sloping lots on the south side of Kings Road due to the unique gully feature that
impacts this lot with more drastic changes in topography in multiple directions. Therefore,
approval of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege in this case.
The variance allows the property owner to develop a single -family residence that
effectively utilizes the buildable width of the lot comparable to and compatible with
developments on other lots in the vicinity that are identically zoned. Other sloping lots in
the vicinity under the same zoning classification along the south side of Kings Road are
1414
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 13
able to be developed with two-story structures and daylighting basements across the
entire width of their lots. The proposed height limit exception do es not result in a special
privilege as the variance allows the property owners to constru ct a residence that meets
their needs while maintaining parity with surrounding development.
The property owners will not achieve additional height or floor area beyond what would
be permissible on a typical slope that is more representative of the slope on other
properties along Kings Road that are not impacted by a gully feature. Furthermore, when
viewed from the street elevation, the residence will provide articulation and will be
approximately 5 feet lower than the 29 -foot height limit as viewed from Kings Road and
maintain heights consistent with other two-story homes constructed in the vicinity.
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
The granting of the variance will not create a visual impact to the community or impact
public or private views. Currently there are no public views from Kings Road to the south
due to the existing residence and garages. The over-height features will not be visible
from Kings Road or residence across the street since they would be located behind
height-compliant portions of the structure as viewed from the street. Additionally, the over-
height features would not be readily noticeable as viewed from West Coast Highway
below due to the distance from the highway and the limited size and height of the features
proposed that would exceed the height limit. Therefore, the variance will not create a
visual impact on surrounding areas or roadways.
Although the City does not have private view protection policies, the proposed residence
will not negatively impact the private views of the residences on the north side of Kings
Road or the public as a result of granting the variance. The Zoning Code allows the
residence to be built to the 29-foot height limit across the entire front of the property along
Kings Road, but the proposed structure is approximately 5 feet lower than the allowed
29-foot height limit as viewed from the street. The small portions of roofs requiring the
variance will not be visible from the street elevation of Kings Road and will not impact
private views from the northerly side of Kings Road any more than a conforming design.
The portions of the structure that exceed the height limit would be most visible from the
property to the east that is also impacted by the gully feature. To minimize the bulk and
mass of the structure as viewed from the neighboring property, the roof planes have been
designed to pitch down towards the easterly neighbor. Furthermore, the portion of the
upper level bathroom that appears as a third level as viewed from the neighbor to the east
has been set back an additional 2 feet beyond the 4-foot side setback to further minimize
the bulk and mass of the visibly tallest portion of the residence where the grades are
1515
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 14
lowest. The over-height covered patio on the main level is open on the side, increasing
building modulation and further reducing the visual mass of the structure.
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.
The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use an d development
regulations through the variance review process. The variance procedure is intended to
resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot
configurations that exist in the City and on this property. Due to the topography of the lot,
height and design of buildings on neighboring properties, the height limit exception can
be approved by the Planning Commission through this variance request.
The subject property is designated for single -unit residential use and the granting of the
variance does not increase the density or floor area beyond what is planned for the area,
and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services.
Summary
Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Variance request as demonstrated in
the draft Resolution. The topographical constraint that the gully creates on the property,
with multiple slopes and angles, restricts the potential development on the site and makes
it difficult to design a structure that effectively utilizes the buildable width of the lot. The
proposed structure is approximately 5 feet lower than allowed 29 -foot height limit as
viewed from the street. The limited portions of roofs requiring the variance will not be
visible from the street elevation of Kings Road since they are located behind height-
compliant portions of the structure as viewed from the street. The project has been
designed such that it will be compatible with other properties in the vicinity, and will not
appear out of scale or character for the existing and allowed development in the
surrounding area.
Alternatives
Staff recommends approval based on the required findings for approval of a variance;
however, the following alternative actions are available for the Commission:
1. Should the Planning Commission determine that there are insufficient facts to
support one or more of 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).
2. 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
1616
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 15
analysis. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff would return with
a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions.
Although staff worked with the applicant to minimize the variance requests,
alternative design options to further avoid or minimize the variance could include,
but are not limited to:
a. Eliminating the roof above the main level patio. Without the roof, the patio
could remain uncovered and would comply with the 24-foot flat roof height
limit for that aspect of the request; however, the patio would be exposed to
a southerly solar direction.
b. Reducing the depth of the garage in front of the office by 8.5 feet would
maintain a code-compliant parking depth of 20 feet and allow for the office
on the main level to be moved closer to the front of the lot where the existing
grades are higher. Relocating the office would significantly reduce and
possibly eliminate the need for a height variance for that design feature.
c. Reducing the area of upper level deck above the gully feature to reduce or
eliminate the need for a variance for that component.
d. Reducing the size of the teen room or eliminating it altogether to
accommodate a redesign of Bedroom 2’s bathroom and closet away from
the gully feature and within the 29-foot building height envelope.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State
CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
This exemption covers the construction of new small facilities or structures including up to
three new single-family residences in urbanized areas. The proposed project is the
construction of a new single-family residence.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing 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.
1717
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 16
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution of Approval
PC 2 Draft Resolution of Denial
PC 3 Applicant’s Project Description and Justification
PC 4 Project Plans
PC 5 Correspondence Received
F:\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2019\PA2019-060\PC SR.docx
1818
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution of Approval
1919
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2020
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. VA2019-002 TO ALLOW PORTIONS OF A NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1113 KINGS ROAD (PA2019-060)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Carolyn Reed (“Applicant”), with respect to property located at
1113 Kings Road, and legally described as Lot 31, Block, E, of Tract 1219 (“Property”)
requesting approval of a variance.
2. The Applicant requests a variance to waive or modify Newport Beach Municipal Code
(“NBMC”) Section 20.30.060 and allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed
the maximum height limit (“Project”).
3. The Property is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan
Land Use Element and is located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
4. The Property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. A public hearing was held on May 23, 2019, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). 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.
1. This project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has
no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Class 3 exempts the construction of new small facilities or structures including up to
three new single-family residences in urbanized areas. The proposed project is the
construction of one new single-family residence.
3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable.
The project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical
concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 2 of 10
a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical
resource.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances – Findings and Decision), the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. 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 a bluff top residential property that slopes north to south generally
consistent with other properties located along the south side of Kings Road; however,
this particular Property is unique in that a deep gully severely constrains the
northeastern corner of the lot. This gully is an unusual Property feature that burdens
the Property with multiple sloping angles and directions that does not generally apply to
the other properties along Kings Road.
2. The rear portion of the proposed residence measures approximately 100 feet back from
the front property line along Kings Road. The slope differential and change in grade is
significant along the western boundary line of the residence as compared to the eastern
property line where the gully feature is located. The change in existing grade along the
western boundary line is approximately five feet (five percent slope) along the proposed
length of the residence, whereas the change in existing grade along the eastern
boundary line is approximately 25.5 feet (25.5 percent slope) due to the gully feature.
3. The most significant change in grade along the eastern boundary actually occurs within
the first 67 feet of the lot as measured from the front property line, where the gully at its
deepest point (62.85 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 88]) is 26.5
feet below the elevation of the front property line (89.3 feet NAVD 88), resulting in a
steep slope of 40 percent.
4. The lot also slopes in various directions from east to west. At the front setback line, the
difference in grade between the east property line and west property line is
approximately 0.8 feet with a 1 percent slope up from west to east. However, at the
extreme depth of the gully on the easterly property line (62.85 feet NAVD 88), the
corresponding grade measurement on the westerly property line is 20 feet higher (82.94
feet NAVD 88). At this location the lots slopes down 22 percent from west to east.
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 3 of 10
5. This variation in topography is a result of the gully in the northeastern corner of the lot
and presents a unique circumstance in comparison to other properties in its vicinity that
warrant the requested variance.
Finding:
B. 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. Due to physical conditions of the Property including multiple slope grades and angles,
strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the homeowner
privileges of a residence burdened by the cost, inconvenience, and loss of functionality
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification.
2. The Zoning Code requires the height of structures to be measured from a grade plane
based on an approximation of the existing grade using several grade points. On sloping
lots, the height limit is intended to follow the slope of the established grade plane. It is
typical for properties on sloping lots to be designed with terracing foundations and roof
that typically maintain a two-level appearance within the allowed height envelope. Due
to the topographical constraint that the gully creates on this lot, including multiple slopes
in differing directions, strict compliance with the Zoning Code development standards
precludes the Property owners from enjoying this same privilege of designing a two-
level terraced design across the buildable width of the lot.
3. The topography featuring multiples slope angles and a gully at a portion of the
northeastern property corner, combined with a residence that spans the buildable width
of the lot, presents a unique challenge. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code would
deprive the Applicant the privilege of building a residence of uniform height across the
subject Property which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
an identical zoning classification.
4. The entire front of the residence facing the street could be built to 29 feet in height with
sloping roofs without a variance. However, the front of the residence is designed to a
maximum height of 23.78 feet from existing grade at the front elevation and is the tallest
observed height as viewed from Kings Road. Due to the sloped nature of the lot and
corresponding maximum height envelope, the first point of height exceedance occurs
down-slope away from Kings Road and 22 feet back from the front setback line (33 feet
from the curb). The height encroachments are not visually higher than any portion of the
residence as viewed from Kings Road because they are behind the complying roof
elements at the front of the building.
5. Modifying the proposed design to eliminate the height variance for the enclosed living
area would require eliminating an office on the main level, located behind a compliant
garage, and eliminating or significantly reducing the size of an upper level closet,
bathroom, and teen room. Modifying the design to eliminate the height variance for the
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 4 of 10
outdoor living areas would require eliminating the roof cover over the deck behind the
garage and office on the main level and reducing the size of the upper level deck. The
appearance of structure as viewed from Kings Road would not change, but the
functionality of the home design would be impacted.
6. The granting of a variance provides relief from Zoning Code height calculations to allow
the residence to maintain comparable height across the both the east and west sides of
the residence to improve and maintain functionality of the house design. It is not
intended nor does it in any way permit features or height increases beyond what can be
built by right elsewhere on the Property where physical hardships due to topography are
not present.
7. The adjacent single-family residence to the east (1101 Kings Rd.), which is also
impacted by the topographic gully feature, has been granted two variances in the past
(VA1034 in 1973 and VA1150 in 1989). It provided relief from the topographic constraint
allowing the home to be constructed. As viewed from Kings Road, the neighboring
residence (100.72-foot ridge elevation) is 11 feet lower in overall roof elevation than the
proposed residence (111.92-foot ridge elevation) due to the difference in existing grade
from which these residences are measured from. However, the neighboring property is
more severely impacted by the gully and the variances authorized a maximum structure
height of 45 feet 6 inches and deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from existing
grade. These height limit exceedances are approximately 13.5 feet higher for the living
area and 12 feet higher for the deck than the proposed variance request.
Finding:
C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The granting of a variance for the preservation of the applicant’s rights to enjoy a
residence similar in style and character to the surrounding residences is necessary due
to the physical conditions of the Property including varying topography with multiple
slope grades in differing directions and the steepness of the grade.
2. The eastern side of the proposed residence is considerably smaller than the western
side of the residence and the design extends a smaller distance away from Kings Road
on that the western side of the residence due to the constraining topographical features.
However, the granting of the variance due to the property slopes is necessary to
maintain functionality of the house design and by allowing the height increase for
approximately 116 square feet of roof area over enclosed living areas and 211 square
feet of roof area over a covered patio area to exceed the 29-foot height limit. It would
also allow 26 square feet of deck and railing area to exceed the 24-foot flat roof height
limit. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant the substantial
property right of building a residence of uniform height across the Property, a design
that is enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity of the variance request. The variance
24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 5 of 10
is intended to permit only what can be built by right elsewhere on the Property where
physical hardships due to topography of the gully feature are not present.
3. To avoid the topographic constraint associated with the gully, the teen room, decks, and
covered patio features of the proposed residence would need to be setback
approximately an additional 15 feet from the easterly side setback line (19 feet from
easterly property line) to eliminate the need for the variance. This modification to the
design would effectively reduce the buildable width from approximately 90 percent of
the lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those locations
4. The over-height areas of the residence are located over a gully feature that slopes
significantly in both a north-south direction, as well as east-west direction that creates a
challenge to design a residence that is functional and architecturally pleasing. The
granting of this variance allows the applicant to preserve and benefit from the
development of a residence that utilizes the entire buildable width of the lot similar in
style, size, and character of surrounding homes.
5. See Facts in Support of Finding B above, which are also in support of Finding C.
Finding:
D. 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. Each segment of Kings Road presents various differing degrees of slope topography
and properties are developed with homes and yards reflecting their specific topographic
constraints. It is appropriate to evaluate each residence in the immediate vicinity on a
case-by-case basis. In this case, the subject lot is more severely impacted than most
other sloping lots on the south side of Kings Road due to the unique gully feature that
affects this lot with more drastic changes in topography in multiple directions. Therefore,
approval of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege in this case.
2. The variance allows the Applicant to develop a single-family residence that effectively
utilizes the buildable width of the lot comparable to and compatible with developments
on other lots in the vicinity that are identically zoned. Other sloping lots in the vicinity
under the same zoning classification along the south side of Kings Road are able to be
developed with two-story structures and daylighting basements across the entire width
of their lots. The proposed height limit exception does not result in a special privilege as
the variance allows the Applicant to construct a residence that meets their needs while
maintaining parity with surrounding development.
3. The Applicant will not achieve additional height beyond what would be permissible on a
typical slope that is more representative of the slope on other properties along Kings
Road, which are not impacted by a gully feature. Furthermore, when viewed from the
street elevation, the residence will provide articulation and will be approximately 5 feet
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 6 of 10
lower than the 29-foot height limit as viewed from the Kings Road and maintain heights
consistent with other two-story homes constructed in the vicinity.
4. The adjacent properties across Kings Road benefit from a naturally raised pad, which
results in structures that appear taller from the street elevation. The proposed exception
from the height limit will not result in a development that is out of character with the
neighborhood.
Finding:
E. 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 granting of the variance will allow for a height increase of approximately 353 square
feet, which equates to approximately 5.7 percent of the total roof area (6,199 square
feet). The remaining roof area will be located under the 24-foot flat roof and 29-foot
sloping roof height limit
2. The design of the structure includes adequate articulation, modulation, and open volume
area consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code.
3. The granting of the variance will not create a visual impact to the community or impact
public or private views. Currently there are no public views from Kings Road to the south
due to the existing residence and garages. The over-height features will not be visible
from Kings Road or residence across the street since they would be located behind
height-compliant portions of the structure as viewed from the street. Additionally, the
over-height features would not be readily noticeable as viewed from West Coast
Highway below due to the distance from the highway and the limited size and height of
the features proposed that would exceed the height limit. Therefore, the variance will
not create a visual impact on surrounding areas or roadways.
4. Although the City does not have private view protection policies, the proposed residence
will not negatively impact the private views of the residences on the north side of Kings
Road or the public as a result of granting the variance. The Zoning Code allows the
residence to be built to the 29-foot height limit across the entire front of the property
along Kings Road, but the proposed structure is approximately five feet lower than the
allowed 29-foot height limit as viewed from the street. The small portions of roofs
requiring the variance will not be visible from the street elevation of Kings Road and will
not impact private views from the northerly side of Kings Road any more than a
conforming design.
5. The portions of the structure that exceed the height limit would be most visible from the
property to the east that is also impacted by the gully feature. To minimize the bulk and
26
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 7 of 10
mass of the structure as viewed from the neighboring property, the roof planes have
been designed to pitch down towards the easterly neighbor. Furthermore, the portion of
the upper level bathroom that appears as a third level as viewed from the neighbor to
the east has been setback an additional two feet beyond the four-foot side setback to
further minimize the bulk and mass of the visibly tallest portion of the residence where
the grades are lowest. The over-height covered patio on the main level is open on the
side, increasing building modulation and further reducing the visual mass of the
structure.
6. There are no public views over or adjacent to the Property.
Finding:
F. 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 Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations through the variance review process. The variance procedure is intended to
resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot
configurations that exist in the City and on this Property. Due to the topography of the
lot, height and design of buildings on neighboring properties, the height limit exception
can be approved by the Planning Commission through this variance request.
2. The Property is designated for single-unit residential use and the granting of the variance
does not increase the density or floor area beyond what is planned for the area, and will
not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services.
3. The 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 Variance No.
VA2019-002, 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.
3. This resolution supersedes Variance No. VA1053, as approved by the City Council on
September 27, 1976, which upon vesting of the rights authorized by this Variance No.
VA2019-002, shall become null and void.
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 8 of 10
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2019.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Peter Zak, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
28
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. 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
Variance.
4. This Variance may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they
determine that the proposed use or conditions under which it is being constructed or
maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is constructed or maintained so as to
constitute a public nuisance.
5. 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.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Division.
7. Should the Property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
8. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that
produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday
and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are
not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
9. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within twenty-four (24)
months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of
time is approved in compliance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning).
10. 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
29
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 10 of 10
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 Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060) including, but not limited to,
Variance No. VA2019-002. 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.
30
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution of Denial
3131
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE3232
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO.
VA2019-002 TO ALLOW PORTIONS OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1113 KINGS ROAD (PA2019-060)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Carolyn Reed (“Applicant”), with respect to property located at
1113 Kings Road, and legally described as Lot 31, Block, E, of Tract 1219 (“Property”)
requesting approval of a variance.
2. The Applicant requests a variance to waive or modify Newport Beach Municipal Code
(“NBMC”) Section 20.30.060 and allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed
the maximum height limit (“Project”).
3. The Property is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan
Land Use Element and is located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
4. The Property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. A public hearing was held on May 23, 2019, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). 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.
1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
Variance
The Planning Commission may approve a variance application only after making each of the
required findings set forth in NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances – Findings and Decision).
In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings for the
following reasons:
33
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 2 of 2
1. The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed Variance for the
Development is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC and that
findings required by Section 20.52.090 are not supported in this case. The Development
may prove detrimental to the community.
2. The design, location, size and characteristics of the Development are not compatible
with the single-family residences in the vicinity. The development may result in negative
impacts to residents in the vicinity and would not be compatible with the enjoyment of
the nearby residential properties.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Variance No.
VA2019-002.
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 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2019.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Peter Zak, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
34
Attachment No. PC 3
Applicant’s Project Description and
Justification
3535
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE3636
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 285 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 • (949) 581‐2888 • Fax (949) 581‐3599
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 2019]
Mr. Jaime Murillo
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Variance Application, 1113 Kings Road
Dear Mr. Murillo:
On behalf of Carolyn and Greg Reed, the owners of the residence located at 1113 Kings Road,
CAA Planning, Inc. (CAA) submits the enclosed Variance application for the proposed
residential project. The existing residence is located in a row of homes fronting the bluffs along
Kings Road in the Newport Heights Community of Newport Beach. The lot slopes both from
west to east, and also more notably, from north to south as a large canyon feature is located along
the easterly property line.
Background
The residence was previously issued variance VA 1053 due to severe site topography. In 1973,
the Planning Commission granted a variance finding “[t]hat there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application,
which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, building and/or uses in the
same district.” Planning Staff further noted, “[i]t is the feeling of the staff that there are unusual
circumstances which apply to this site which do not generally apply to other building sites in this
area.”
The historical variance was necessary for the construction of the existing RV garage located on
the easterly side of the property due to the sloping of the property from west to east as well as the
obvious and more easily discernable north to south slope constraints. The circumstances and
conditions that caused the Planning Commission and City Staff to make the determination to
issue what today amounts to a historical variance, have not changed by any standard of measure.
The canyon along the easterly side of the property continues to preclude the development of the
site in a manner that does not generally occur.
Project Description
The proposed project would replace an existing single-family residence with a new single family
residence on a 17,745 square foot lot. The building coverage, including the eaves and decks, is
6,199 square foot, or 34.9% of the lot. The home would include a basement level, a main level
and an upper level with a total floor area of 10,803 square feet. The design is characterized by
3737
Mr. Jaime Murillo
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 2019]
Page 2 of 4
several outdoor patios and covered decks, consistent with the type of outdoor living that is
possible in Newport Beach. The proposed residence is of appropriate size and scale given the lot
site and as compared to the existing homes located in the surrounding neighborhood.
The City’s Zoning Code specifies a height limit of 29 feet for sloped roofs. The proposed
building heights are 22’- 9” and 25’-8” as dimensioned above the existing front property line
profile. Careful consideration was paid to ensure that the building height was not “maxed out” at
the front of the property.
Variance
While Kings Road presents bluff top topography generally sloping in a north to south orientation
towards Pacific Coast Highway, the lot at 1113 Kings Road includes an added feature making
development significantly more challenging. There is a deep canyon which severely constrains
the site. The unique topography of 1113 Kings Road residences presents challenges to
development including:
Northerly Boundary: Kings Road (front) property line climbs from west to east by 3.28 feet (4%
slope). Although the property climbs as viewed from the street, the proposed Grade
Establishment along the existing westerly property grade profile would be applied at a level
elevation across the width of the lot.
Westerly Boundary: The property line shared with 1121 Kings Road falls from north to south by
45.67 feet (27.7% slope). The proposed grade establishment requests to follow this existing
property grade profile and apply the existing grades at a level elevation across the width of the
lot
Easterly Boundary: The property line shared with 1101 Kings Road line falls from north to south
by 66.09 feet (36.2% slope). Within the first 30 feet of the front setback, the existing grade falls
by approximately 20 feet.
Deviations are allowed through the Zoning Code with the processing of a Variance (Section
20.52.090). The City’s Zoning Code states:
A variance provides a process for City consideration of requests to waive or modify certain
standards of this Zoning Code when, because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the
property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and in the same zoning district. (Section 20.52.090)
3838
Mr. Jaime Murillo
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 2019]
Page 3 of 4
Justification
Original variance – The requested variance would serve as a replacement for the existing
variance, as the areas considered as over-height for the proposed residence are the same
areas that required the issuance of a variance VA 1053 for the construction of the existing
RV garage. While the existing RV garage would be removed and replaced with the new
residence, the new residence requires the same issuance of a variance for the over-height
area as the RV garage did.
The variance is required to permit a limited height increase representing a small
percentage of the total residence. The requested height increase is approximately 327
square feet (5.3%) of roof area to exceed the 29-foot height limit and 150 square feet
(2.4%) of deck with railing to exceed the 24-foot height limit.
The over height areas are limited to the portion of the residence affected by the canyon
area. While most bluff-top homes along Kings Road is presented with challenges, each
segment of Kings Road presents with differing degrees of slope topography and most
residences are in varying stages of home, backyard and/or slope stability improvements.
It is appropriate to evaluate each residence in the immediately vicinity on a case by case
basis.
The over-height features will not be visible from the street and will not, themselves,
cause interference with the coastal views of adjacent or neighboring properties. Although
the over-height features are calculated as such based on the City’s zoning code, the
observed heights will not be noticeably taller than other area of the residence.
The proposed two-story residence will replace an existing one-story residence. The
portion of the residence that may cause limitations to coastal views for the across the
street neighbor would be the portion of the residence location on the Kings Road
frontage. This portion of the residence is within the 29-foot height limit.
While certain lots along Kings Road are subject to private deed restrictions related to
view protection, there is no such deed restriction on 1113 Kings Road. In addition, there
are no view corridors within the project vicinity that would be impacted by the proposed
project.
Conclusion
As you are aware, the project applicants have made sizeable revisions to the project plans to
reduce the encroachments above the height limit. The variance is only requested along the
easterly property line where the canyon inordinately skews the calculation of grade and results in
very minor encroachments above the established height limit. As detailed above, 327square feet
of the roof area, or 5.3% of the total roof, would exceed the height limit. Furthermore, the area of
3939
Mr. Jaime Murillo
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 2019]
Page 4 of 4
roof which encroaches into the height limit cannot be seen from the street as it is located at a
lower elevation and blocked by the roof line at the northern elevation.
Findings in support of the variance are attached. If you have questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Pua Whitford at (949) 581-2888.
Sincerely,
CAA PLANNING, INC.
Shawna L. Schaffner
Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Findings of Fact
cc: Ms. Carolyn Reed
4040
Attachment No. PC 4
Project Plans
4141
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4242
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
Drawn: CSH
1
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnSITE PLANN 3°33'00" E 202.33'
N 7°52'40" E 180.05'N 86°27'00" W 74.46'D=0°33'20"R=1,033.00L=9.99'KINGS ROADRESIDENCE
RESIDENCE N 76°10'03" W 100.00'NN5'-0"
PUE
10'-1"
BLDG.
10'-1"
BLDG.6'-3"5'-9"5'-0"7'-0"7'-0"4'-1"4'-1"19'-0"11'-0"3'-0"15'-1"3'-0"25'-1"3'-0"15'-1"3'-0"10'-0"SEWER EASEMENT
1'-0" WIDE POLELINE EASEMENT5'-0"
PUE
19'-0"11'-0"
WM
EXISTING RESIDENCE
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
P11
P13
P14
P15
P10
P9
P8P7P6
P12
(86.48)(64.40)(63.86)(44.50)(26.00)
(86.36)
(74.85)
(66.00)
(38.00)
(40.00)
(80.00)
(82.00)(84.13)(85.67)
(85.50)
EXISTING RETAINING
WALL TO REMAIN
8
9
.
4
1
T
O
C
8
8
.
9
6
F
L
87.96
F
L
88.53 F
L
86.02
F
L
86.67 F
L
88.84
F
S89.03 FS88
.
8
4
F
S
86.85 FS87.17 FS86
.
8
5
F
S
86.13 TOC
85.68 FL
87.99 TOC
87.62 FL DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY STD-164-LDRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY STD-164-LP
O
W
E
R
P
O
L
ESEWER MAINSEWER LATERAL
CLEAN OUT PER CITY STD-406-L
89
.
0
9
T
O
C
88
.
6
5
F
L
88.23
T
O
C
87.85
F
L
88.
4
6
F
S
2%6%
6%
3%2%3%6%
6%4%
8
6
.
5
2
F
S
86.34
T
O
C
85.90
F
L
87
.
2
0
T
O
C
86
.
8
0
F
L
2%2%
2%
2%
2%88.95 FS88.
3
8
F
S
86.
4
4
F
S87.09 FSD10D10A
9
A
9
B
9
B
9
C
10
C
10
E
10
E
104'-1"BLDG.SHEET INDEX
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Name
SITE PLAN
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
NBZC GRADE DETERMINATION (MODIFIED POINTS METHODOLOGY)
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
ROOF PLAN
ROOF PLAN WITH TOPO SURVEY
SITE SECTIONS A & B
SITE SECTIONS C & D
SITE SECTION E & ENLARGED DRIVEWAY PLAN
FRONT & RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
Feet
Imagery:2009-2013 photos provided by Eagle
Imaging www.eagleaerial.com
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the
accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of
Newport Beach and its employees and agents
disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to
any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
1/19/2018
0 894447
Newport
Beach
GIS
SCALE: 1" = 10'
SITE PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR
Greg & Carolyn Reed
1113 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 698-2091
JOB ADDRESS
1113 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
LEGAL
Lot 31
Block E
Tract 1219
Zoning R-1
APN: 049-212-03
SITE
Lot Area 17,745 sq. ft.
Buildable Lot Area 14,512 sq. ft.
Max Allowed Buildable Area (2x) 29,024 sq. ft.
Project Buildable Area (0.85x) 12,311 sq. ft.
Min. Open Volume Area (15%) 2,177 sq. ft.
Project Open Volume Area (125%) 18,130 sq. ft.
Max Third Floor Area (15%) 2,177 sq. ft.
Project Third Floor Area (2.8%) 411 sq. ft.
RESIDENCE
Basement Level Floor Area 4,177 sq. ft.
Main Level Floor Area 3,361 sq. ft.
Upper Level Floor Area 3,265 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 10,803 sq. ft.
Garage Area 1,508 sq. ft.
Lower Level Covered Patio 933 sq. ft.
Main Level Covered Deck 354 sq. ft.
Main Level Deck 661 sq. ft.
Upper Level Covered Deck 318 sq. ft.
Upper Level Deck 682 sq. ft.
OCCUPANCY: R-3, U
TYPE: V-B fire-sprinkled per NFPA 13D
VICINITY MAP
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT
EAST PROPERTY LINE
86.48-26.00= 60.48 DIVIDE BY 182.33 = 33.2% SLOPE
WEST PROPERTY LINE
85.67-40.00= 45.67 DIVIDE BY 160.00 = 28.5% SLOPE
**SEE SHEET 5 FOR ENLARGED
STREET IMPROVEMENT/
DRIVEWAY PLAN
43
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
43
5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.pln2
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE44
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
44
5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.pln10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
45'-9 1/2"45'-9 1/2"45'-10 1/2"45'-9 1/2"
41'-5 1/2"
41'-6"
41'-6"
41'-6"
40'
P10
64'82'
P8
84.13'
P7
85.67'
P6
86.48 P1 (Can't use a
raised planter here, but
we can use driveway
grade)
64.4'
P2
63.86'
P3 44.5'
P4
26'
P5
72.66'
P14
74.85' P13
85.5' P12
(Avg
Grade of
front
patio)
86.36'
P11
38'
P15
80' P9
3
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGENBZC GRADE DETERMINATION (MODIFIED POINTS METHODOLOGY)
66.00
45
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
45
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
4
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnBASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLANW/D
6'-2 3/4"BLDG.4'-1"BLDG.10'-1"4'-0"86'-8"79'-6"4'-1"2'-0"24"28'-8"18'-2"28'-8"18'-8"33'-8"11'-0"10'-4"6'-10"6'-2"
4'-0"6'-4"4'-0"2'-10"79'-6"4'-1"15'-0"4'-2"14'-2"26'-10"19'-4"4'-0"13'-5"9'-5"4'-0"15'-4"10'-1"4'-0"86'-8"
18'-8"5'-6"19'-0"4'-0"39'-6"
16'-8"17'-0"
UPSHELF & POLEELEVATOR
GAME ROOM
GAME ROOM
BUNK BEDROOM
LOUNGE
THEATRE LAVLAVPOCKET
POCKET
POCKETSHOWERW/C
BATH 6 SHELF & POLEBATH 7
UPUPUP
UPUPUP
UP UP UP UP
UP UP UP UP
COVERED
PATIO
COVERED
PATIO
UP
POWDER
CLG. 106
BAR
CLG. 106
W/CSHELF & POLESHELF & POLE
CLOSET
CLG. 96
SHOWER
W/C
LAV
LAVBEDROOM 6
EXERCISE
COVERED
PATIO
WINE
BROOMCLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106
CLG. 106 CLG. 106
CLG. 96
F.F. 74.83
P1 P2 P3
P11
P12
P13
P14
P9
P8P7P6
(86.48)(64.40)(63.86)
(86.36)
(74.85)
(66.00)
(80.00)
(82.00)(84.13)(85.67)
(85.50)
50" F.P.
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
46
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
46
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
5
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnMAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN79'-6"4'-1"6'-4"24'-8"2'-4"16'-10"2'-4"24'-8"2'-4"24"24"2'-4"4'-0"79'-6"4'-1"15'-0"18'-4"26'-10"19'-4"10'-1"90'-8"
2'-1"50'-11"14'-4"10'-4"13'-0"
10'-1"90'-8"
6'-0"22'-2"14'-6"48'-0"
19'-8"2'-6"
23'-8"
6'-6"17'-2"24"
25'-8"
4'-0"13'-8"5'-2"4'-6"4'-0"22'-10"4'-0"15'-4"4'-2"14'-2"28'-5"6'-4"
9'-0"24'-6"14'-6"3'-8"17'-4"3'-8"22'-7"6'-10"
4'-0"6'-4"4'-0"9'-0"3'-8"17'-4"3'-8"DN.
UP
GARAGE
816 SF
CLG. 90
GARAGE
692 SF
CLG. 100
ENTRY
POCKET
OFFICE
CLG. 106
LIVING
CLG. 106
SHELF & POLE
UP
PANTRY
CLG. 96
DINING
CLG. 106
SHELF & POLE
KITCHEN
CLG. 106LAVW/CPOWDER
CLG. 106
NOOK
CLG. 106
PORCH
SLOPED CLG.POCKETKITCHEN
CLG. 106
SINK
K N E E S P A C E
MICRODW
SHELVES
SHELVESSHELVESBUILT-IN
ELEVATOR
FRZR.OVENSREFR.DN.LAVW/CSHOWER
CLG. 96
A/V
BENCHBATH 8
CLG. 96
CRAFT ROOM
CLG. 106
RANGE
COVERED
DECK
DECK
DECK
SLOPED CLG.
POCKET
FRZR.OVENSREFR.UP
6"
O P E N
F.F. 86.67
3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPE 3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPEP1 P2 P3
P11
P13
P14
P9
P8P7P6
P12
(86.48)(64.40)(63.86)
(86.36)
(74.85)
(66.00)
(80.00)
(82.00)(84.13)(85.67)
(85.50)
42" F.P.
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
47
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
47
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
6
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnUPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANW/DW/D80'-8"4'-1"5'-2"14'-4"15'-0"16'-10"14'-4"15'-0"3'-2"24"10'-1"24"65'-4"23'-4"
22'-10"4'-0"13'-9"14'-9"5'-0"5'-0"4'-0"10'-4"9'-0"84'-9"14"23'-10"14'-0"32'-10"13'-6"6"22'-4"10'-6"10'-1"4'-0"63'-4"23'-4"
24"27'-2"15'-2"19'-0"6'-6"16'-10"6'-2"20"9'-0"4'-6"
3'-6"13'-4"15'-0"3'-5"5'-5"4'-0"13'-4"5'-0"14'-6"8'-4"
14'-6"12'-8"
36"
36"
36"DN.LAV
W/C
SHOWERBATH 2
CLG. 90
BENCHSHELF & POLECLOSET
CLG. 90
DECK
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
BATH 3
CLG. 90
BEDROOM 5
BEDROOM 4
ELEVATOR
HALL
SLOPED CLG.
SHELF & POLESHELF & POLESHELF & POLE
SHELF & POLESHELF & POLE
DRESSERSHELF & POLE
CLOSET
CLG. 90
CLOSET
CLG. 90
MASTER
BATH
SLOPED
CLG.
SHOWER BENCHTUBW/CLAVDECK
COVERED PATIO
O P E N
T O
B E L O W
MASTER
BEDROOM
SLOPED CLG.
HALL
CLG. 90
TEEN ROOM
CLG. 90
VENT
LAUNDRY
CLG. 90
FAU
FAU
3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPE
LAV W/C
SHOWER BENCHSLOPED CLG.3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPECOVERED
DECK
LAV
3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPESHELF & POLECLOSET
CLG. 96
F.F. 98.51
CLG. 90
P1
(86.48)
P2
(64.40)
P3
(63.86)
P11
(86.36)
P13
(74.85)
P14
(66.00)
P9
(80.00)
P8
(82.00)
P7
(84.13)
P6
(85.67)POCKETVENT VANITYDECK
DECK
P12
(85.50)BUILT-INSKYLIGHT
ABOVE
LINENSHELF & POLESHELF & POLEVANITY
VANITY
SLOPED CLG.LINENBATH 5
CLG. 90
LAV W/C SHOWERBENCHSHELF & POLECLOSET
CLG. 96
SHELF & POLEVANITY
BATH 4
CLG. 90
LAV W/C
SHOWERBENCHSHELF & POLECLOSET
CLG. 96
SHELF & POLEVANITY
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
SKYLIGHT
ABOVE
36" F.P.
36" F.P.
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
48
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
48
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
7
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnROOF PLAN3:123:123:123:123:123:123:123:12 3:123:123:123:125:125:125:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
3:12 3:123:123:123:123:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12 3:123:123:123:12
3:12
3:123:123:12
3:123:123:12
2% SLOPE
3:123:123:12
2% SLOPE2% SLOPE2% SLOPE3:123:123:123:123:122% SLOPE2% SLOPE3:123:123:12
2'-0" x 4'-0"
CHIMNEY CAP
1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"D10D10A
9
B
9
C
10
E
10
20 sq ft
37 sq ft
211 sq ft
59 sq ft
RIDGE
HIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPRIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE VALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPRIDGE
UPPER DECK
UPPER DECK
111.68RIDGE111.92 111.92
P1
(86.48)
P2
(64.40)
P3
(63.86)
P4
(44.50)
P11
(86.36)
P13
(74.85)
P14
(66.00)
P9
(80.00)
P8
(82.00)
P7
(84.13)
P6
(85.67)HIPHIPHIPRIDGERIDGERIDGE
HIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYLOWER DECK
LOWER DECK
UPPER DECK HIPHIPHIPHIPR.HIPVALLEYHIP112.30111.05P12
(85.50)VALLEYHIPHIPHIPR.
(78.36)
(71.46)
108.18
(81.45)
(85.95)
108.18
T.O.W. 101.85T.O.W. 101.85
T.O.W. 101.85(74.70)
(77.99)
(69.83)100.09
(77.07)
(81.28)
108.18
(84.54)
(84.08)
(84.68)
(84.98)
(83.50)
(82.94)
(79.36)
107.68
DENOTES ROOF AREA (327 SQ. FT.) ABOVE 29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
(59 SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER LOWER ENCLOSED SPACE)
(211 SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER COVERED PATIO)
TOTAL UPPER ROOF AREA 3,958 SQ. FT. WITH 57 SQ. FT. (1.4%) ABOVE HEIGHT LIMIT
DENOTES DECK/RAILING AREA (26 SQ. FT.) ABOVE 24'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
RIDGE
VALLEYHIPHIPVALLEYHIPHIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYHIPRIDGER.R.110.06
110.06
110.06
110.06 111.38RIDGE
(86.28)
(86.07)
(84.65)
(80.72)
(79.90)
(85.07)
(85.38)
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18 108.18
108.18
107.68
T.O.W. 101.85 HIPHIPVALLEY(86.39)
(85.85)
(85.61)
(85.39)
110.76 (84.26)
(80.74)
(85.66)
(65.61)
97.68
(64.11)
(68.68)
(68.68)
(73.38)
(77.33)
(77.89)
(78.05)(79.18)
(79.18)
(79.18)
(79.18)
(75.53)
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
ROOF PLAN
49
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
49
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
8
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnROOF PLAN WITH TOPO SURVEY3:123:123:123:123:123:123:123:12 3:123:123:123:125:125:125:12
5:12
5:12
5:12
3:12 3:123:123:123:123:123:12
3:123:12
3:123:12 3:123:123:123:12
3:12
3:123:123:12
3:123:123:12
2% SLOPE
3:123:123:12
2% SLOPE2% SLOPE2% SLOPE3:123:123:123:123:122% SLOPE2% SLOPE3:123:123:12
2'-0" x 4'-0"
CHIMNEY CAP
1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"D10D10A
9
B
9
C
10
E
10
20 sq ft
37 sq ft
211 sq ft
59 sq ft
RIDGE
HIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPRIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE VALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPRIDGE
UPPER DECK
UPPER DECK
111.68RIDGE111.92 111.92
P1
(86.48)
P2
(64.40)
P3
(63.86)
P4
(44.50)
P11
(86.36)
P13
(74.85)
P14
(66.00)
P9
(80.00)
P8
(82.00)
P7
(84.13)
P6
(85.67)HIPHIPHIPRIDGERIDGERIDGE
HIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYLOWER DECK
LOWER DECK
UPPER DECK HIPHIPHIPHIPR.HIPVALLEYHIP112.30111.05P12
(85.50)VALLEYHIPHIPHIPR.
(78.36)
(71.46)
108.18
(81.45)
(85.95)
108.18
T.O.W. 101.85T.O.W. 101.85
T.O.W. 101.85(74.70)
(77.99)
(69.83)100.09
(77.07)
(81.28)
108.18
(84.54)
(84.08)
(84.68)
(84.98)
(83.50)
(82.94)
(79.36)
107.68
DENOTES ROOF AREA (327 SQ. FT.) ABOVE 29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
(59 SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER LOWER ENCLOSED SPACE)
(211 SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER COVERED PATIO)
TOTAL UPPER ROOF AREA 3,958 SQ. FT. WITH 57 SQ. FT. (1.4%) ABOVE HEIGHT LIMIT
DENOTES DECK/RAILING AREA (26 SQ. FT.) ABOVE 24'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
RIDGE
VALLEYHIPHIPVALLEYHIPHIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYHIPRIDGER.R.110.06
110.06
110.06
110.06 111.38RIDGE
(86.28)
(86.07)
(84.65)
(80.72)
(79.90)
(85.07)
(85.38)
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18
108.18 108.18
108.18
107.68
T.O.W. 101.85 HIPHIPVALLEY(86.39)
(85.85)
(85.61)
(85.39)
110.76 (84.26)
(80.74)
(85.66)
(65.61)
97.68
(64.11)
(68.68)
(68.68)
(73.38)
(77.33)
(77.89)
(78.05)(79.18)
(79.18)
(79.18)
(79.18)
(75.53)
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
ROOF PLAN
50
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
50
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
9
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnSITE SECTIONS A & BSITE SECTION "A"
SITE SECTION "B"
51
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
51
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
10
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnSITE SECTIONS C & DSITE SECTION "C"
SITE SECTION "D"
52
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
52
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
11
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:22 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnSITE SECTION E & ENLARGED DRIVEWAY PLANN 86°27'00" W 74.46'D=0°33'20"R=1,033.00L=9.99'KINGS ROADRESIDENCE
N10'-1"
BLDG.
10'-1"
BLDG.6'-3"19'-0"11'-0"3'-0"15'-1"3'-0"25'-1"3'-0"15'-1"3'-0"19'-0"11'-0"
WM
P1
P11
(86.48)
(86.36)
8
9
.
4
1
T
O
C
8
8
.
9
6
F
L
87.96
F
L
88.53 F
L
86.02
F
L
86.67 F
L
88.84
F
S89.03 FS88
.
8
4
F
S
86.85 FS87.17 FS86
.
8
5
F
S
86.13 TOC
85.68 FL
87.99 TOC
87.62 FL DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY STD-164-LDRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY STD-164-L89
.
0
9
T
O
C
88
.
6
5
F
L
88.23
T
O
C
87.85
F
L
88.
4
6
F
S
2%6%
6%
3%2%3%6%
6%4%
8
6
.
5
2
F
S
86.34
T
O
C
85.90
F
L
87
.
2
0
T
O
C
86
.
8
0
F
L
2%2%
2%
2%
2%88.95 FS88.
3
8
F
S
86.
4
4
F
S87.09 FS4'-1"SITE SECTION "E"
ENLARGED DRIVEWAY PLAN
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
53
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
53
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
12
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:23 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnFRONT & RIGHT ELEVATION10'-7"9'-1"24"F.F. 86.67
F.F. 98.51
(86.48)3
12
3
12111.38RIDGERIDGE 112.30
(88.58)22'-9"112.30RIDGE25'-8"(86.70)1
86.48(115.48)(115.36)(114.67)110.06RIDGE(88.74)21'-4"108.1819'-3"11
86.36 (85.67)6
85.6788.9910'-7"9'-1"10'-7"F.F. 74.83
F.F. 86.67
F.F. 98.51
(85.67)RIDGE112.30RIDGE111.683
12
3
12
3 12
5 12
6
85.67(114.67)(80.00)9
80.00(109.00)(82.00)8
82.00(111.00)(84.13)7
84.13(113.13)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
54
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
54
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
13
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:23 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnLEFT SIDE ELEVATION10'-7"9'-1"10'-7"RIDGE112.30F.F. 74.83
F.F. 86.67
F.F. 98.51
3 12
5
12
3
12
(86.48)1
86.48(115.48)(64.40)2
64.40(93.40)(63.86)3
63.86(92.86)11
86.36BEYOND(115.36)BEYOND12
85.50BEYOND(114.50)BEYOND12
74.85BEYOND(103.85)BEYONDSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
55
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
55
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1113 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
14
OF
SHEET
SHEETS14
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE5/8/19 11:23 AM 1113 KINGS ROAD_REED_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV8.plnREAR ELEVATION10'-7"9'-1"10'-7"10'-7"9'-1"10'-7"(82.00)(63.86)F.F. 74.83
F.F. 86.67
F.F. 98.51
F.F. 74.83
F.F. 86.67
F.F. 98.51
3
12
3
63.86
8
82.00
(9
2
.
8
6
)(74.85)13
74.85(103.85)(111.00)7
84.13
BEYOND113.13BEYOND12
85.50
BEYOND114.50BEYOND2
64.40
BEYOND93.40BEYONDSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATION
56
PA2019-060 Attachment No. PC 4 - Project Plans
56
Attachment No. PC 5
Correspondence Received
5757
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5858
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:15 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road Height Variance
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:10 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road Height Variance
I strongly oppose the request for a height variance at the above mentioned address. EVERYONE should
abide by the well establish Newport Beach building codes which have been successfully adhered to for
years. Having built two homes, one on Lido and one in Newport Heights, we realized the importance of
respecting our neighbors and their properties. THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCEPTIONS.
Thank you,
Katherine Choate
Sent from my iPhone
5959
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:00 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road
-----Original Message-----
From: James & Nancy Turner <noturner@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:59 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road
I think the 1113 home should obey the existing height and set back laws ..No wavers for the 1113
home..Thank you Nancy Turner
6060
From:Jeff Frum
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:1113 Kings Road Variance Request
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:15:43 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners:
My name is Jeff Frum and reside at 1400 Kings Road, NB CA 92663.
I hope that you will not grant the variance request for the proposed project at 1113 Kings
Road. I feel that the existing rules that we have lived by for years should continue to protect
our views and that the applicant should adapt their plans to the topography and build down the
slope.
Respectfully,
Jeff Frum
6161
From:Carrie Slayback
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Height Variance, King"s Road
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:46:42 PM
Honorable Planning Commission Chairman and Commissioners,
Please do not allow the height variance 1113 Kings Road.
The new owner purchased the lot under the conditions of Newport’s building code.
Please continue to enforce existing code regulations.
Do not signal owners that they can change our codes to suit their wishes.
Best,
Carrie Luger Slayback
6262
From:Janet Stemler
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:1113 Kings Road
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:48:32 PM
Commissioners
We strongly oppose granting any height variance in our neighborhood.
Thank you
Janet Stemler
212 Kings Place
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
9496401623
Sent from my iPad
6363
From:brucru@sbcglobal.net
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:Height variance request 1113 Kings rd
Date:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:58:35 AM
This request strongly urges a denial for the height variance at 1113 Kings rd.
The owners need to stay within the same guidelines as all the neighbors. The tremendous size of the lot will
certainly accommodate a lovely home!!!
Please don’t let these people ruin the quality of the neighbors’ homes and views.
Sincerely,
Gary and Carolyn Brubaker
1710 Kings Rd.
Newport Beach
Sent from my iPhone
6464
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:John Carlos Rowe
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:1113 Kings Rd variance
Date:Friday, May 17, 2019 2:44:14 PM
We live at 700 Kings Rd and are out of the US at the time of the meeting to request 2 height variances for the
proposed construction at 1113 Kings Rd. We are totally opposed to this requested variance. The slope of the
property does not justify the request. Larger and larger homes on Kings Rd are lowering the quality of life for all of
the residents and serve no reasonable purpose. Preserving views and reasonable open space should be a priority of
the City. A new home at 1113 Kings Rd can be easily built without the height variances requested.
John and Kristin Rowe
700 Kings Rd
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:Peggy Palmer
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim
Subject:1113 Kings Road - Height Variance Request / PA2019-060 / Activity VA2019-002
Date:Saturday, May 18, 2019 3:22:19 PM
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Recently the applicant for the property located at 1113 Kings Road applied for a
height variance. The variance is to allow for an increase in the height, due to the
steep topography; however, the applicant’s architectural renderings illustrate that
they are already building up to the 29 foot height level in this so called “steep
topography”. The height exception is for a patio-roof, which would equate to an
additional 3.07 feet for a total of 32 feet - seven inches, this is not a “hardship
variance”, this is a luxury variance that should be denied.
Please note the following policy according to California State Law and the Newport
Beach Municipal Code:
“The Staff Report demonstrates the absence of substantial hardship on the part of
the property owners and instead shows their desire to maximize the scale and
value of their proposed project. Thus, granting the above variance would
constitute a grant of special privileges in violation of state law and the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.”
According to Jamie Murillo, Senior Planner, the proposed 12,303 foot home,
including the four car garage, will also have a 100 foot projection from the structure
to the bluff to include a 29 foot height and a four foot set-back on each side, a
height variance should not even be considered; yet, the City Staff is recommending
approval?
Mr. Murillo also stated that the City Staff recommended several options to the
applicant, but apparently the Reed's will not deviate from this unnecessary height
variance.
At this time, I am asking that the Planning Commissioners recommend an extension
of the project, in order to allow the applicant, the community and the City to review
these different options, (as suggested by City Staff). This will achieve a community
consensus.
The owner of the property fully understood the nature of the topography when they
purchased this lot in 2018. The parcel located at 1113 currently has expansive views
of the harbor, turning basin and ocean; allowing this particular variance in addition
to the proposed 100 foot projection and the 29 foot height would be reckless
disregard to the residents of Cliff Haven.
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
I am requesting that the Planning Commissioners deny this variance. This variance
is not a hardship for the applicant, but it will be a hardship inherited by the
surrounding residents, if approved.
In closing, we need to all play by the rules and be respectful of our neighbors, now
and in the future.
Thank you for your consideration,
Peggy V. Palmer
Cliff Haven Community Association
Board Member
1701 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 2:31 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 2019-060-ActivityVA2019-002
(Please forgive me if you have received multiple copies of this email. My old Mac kept wanting to
add @aol to the end of the email addresses, particularly the copy to Jaime Murillo, which I finally
sent to your email address, to his attention. I think all of the others came back to me)
Honorable Planning Commissioners
It has been brought to my attention from numerous sources that there is a piece of property that
was recently purchased on 1113 King’s Road whose owners are asking for a considerable height
variance from the City. If granted, this variance will result in the construction of a house that will
interfere with the views of neighbors who generally speaking, have lived on King's Road for years.
I cannot imagine making additions to my house that would interfere with my neighbors’ views/rights
even if I didn’t need a variance to do so. I don’t think that individuals should expect favoritism from
the city whether a house is 2,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet.
Rules and codes were established for a reason and each time they are broken, it becomes easier
to justify this unfair behavior the next time. Also, when favoritism is shown to some at the expense
of others, respect is lost for the agency granting the favor. ALL of us in Newport Beach must work
together and play by the rules to maintain the beauty and collegial life style that we now enjoy.
Lynn Lorenz
434 Redlands Avenue
Newport Beach, 92663
949 646 2054
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Bobbi Robinson <bobiroboc@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 6:40 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 NO to height variance!
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:TJ Williams
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:1113 Kings Rd: Petitions 1-5 Opposing the Height Variance and New Construction
Date:Monday, May 20, 2019 9:17:35 PM
Attachments:Petitions 1-5.pdf
TJ Williams
1110 Kings Rd
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jerry Fink <jerryfink@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 10:19 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Cc: 'Jerry Fink'
Subject: PA2019-060 Reed Residence Variance Request
Attachments: City of Newport Beach - Reed Residence - Jerome Fink letter 5-20-19.pdf
Chair Zak and Members of the Planning Commission,
Please see the attached letter in support of the above referenced to be built residence. I am a resident
on Kings Road.
Sincerely,
Jerry
Jerome A. Fink
(714)293-0888
jerryfink@earthlink.net
Please note new address:
1511 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: Support of Variance Request--Reed Residence
Attachments: Fullerton Ave.pdf
From: Evan Moore <evan@strattfordcapital.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:41 AM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Support of Variance Request--Reed Residence
To Whom it May Concern-
Please see my attached letter in support of the variance request for the Reed Residence on King’s Road
in Newport Beach. I believe this to be Agenda Item #4.
Thank you for your consideration.
_____________________________________
Evan Moore
Strattford Capital, LLC
18100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 850 • Irvine, CA 92612
T 949.381.3445 • C 650.380.3702
evan@strattfordcapital.com
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY:
planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Peter Zak, Chair, Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Variance Request – Reed Residence – Agenda Item #4
Dear Chair Zak,
I support the homeowner’s request for a variance. I have reviewed the plans and the City’s Staff Report,
and there is no doubt that the property has unique topographic challenges. Such challenges do not exist
at the vast majority of lots on Kings Road and, more generally, within the entire City of Newport Beach.
It appears from the exhibits provided in the report that a variance is warranted in this specific case,
especially in light of the fact that that the city has previously approved variances for this property and
the property adjacent to it.
For the homeowner to avoid an over-height determination due to the gully, he would have to build the
house with a 19-foot setback from the eastern property line – such action would deprive them of
property rights enjoyed by the surrounding neighborhood. With an approved variance, the homeowner
would not be gaining any additional privileges, but instead will likely be building less square footage
than he otherwise would have if he were able to fully maximize the use of the eastern side of the
property, or if he were to step the property further down the slope towards Coast Highway.
The requested height increase is beyond reasonable given the slope of the gully. The variance will NOT
provide any additional square footage for the homeowner, nor will it give the homeowner any
additional building height, which provides benefit to residents on both sides of Kings Road. The
proposed residence is of quality design, with articulation to relieve massing along Kings Road, and will
be several feet lower than the 29-foot height limit.
Newport Beach does not protect private views. To do so in this case would be contrary to the City’s own
General Plan and Zoning regulations and would set bad precedent moving forward. I urge the Planning
Commission to approve the requested height variance.
Sincerely,
Evan Moore
Fullerton Ave
CC Members of the Planning Commission
Jaime Murillo
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:37 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Rd - Letter Opposing Height Variance and New Construction
Attachments: 1110 Kings Rd View.jpg
From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:32 AM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd - Letter Opposing Height Variance and New Construction
Jaime Murillo,
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I’m the owner of 1110 Kings Rd. We are located
directly across the street from the subject property, 1113 Kings R d. The reason for my letter is
to express my grave concerns for the proposed new construction sitting across our street. This
new monstrosity of a property will not only affect my property but surrounding properties as
well. The impact on our neighborhood will be addressed at the variance hearing on Thursday,
May 23rd, therefore I would like to illustrate the direct impact on our property and the issues with
the overall project.
When this property was purchased it came with a lot of tricky slope points . When standing on
the street and looking at 1113 Kings Road the left (south) side garage is already at a maximum as
approve by a previous height variance from previous owners. The house directly to the left
demonstrates the true grade level. This a ravine (for lack of a better word) that drastically
drops. This area is a little grey on the city’s proposal plotting. We argue the “grade level” is not
properly represented and have valid information to back that statement. We are arguing the
proposed plans be taken off and reviewed based on the proper grade heights of the property.
The present owners of 1113 Kings Road are proposing to build a massive home just under 11,000
square feet. As it may be their right they are completely ignoring the neighbors and their
concerns. They can build this size of home without obstructing and devaluing other neighbor’s
property by simply building down the slope (like most on Kings Road do) and not up high to block
the ocean, sky and sunlight from multiple surrounding neighbors.
As you can see from the photo provided, we will lose our entire view directly in front of our
property. The view will be so severely impacted that we won’t even be able to see the blue sky
from our lower level when calculating their proposed house height. The new construction will
not only obstruct our views but this obstruction will have a financial impact on our property as
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
well. If the owners, of 1113 Kings Rd are allowed to proceed with their proposed plans, our
neighborhood is in jeopardy of losing its charm and neighborly spirit, our view along with multiple
other neighbor’s views will be impacted, the value of our properties will be impacted and our
privacy will be impacted. Our master bedroom is located in the front portion of our house on the
second level. If approved, 1113 Kings Rd will have a direct sight line into my master bedroom
impacting our privacy.
After meeting with staff and reviewing the plans, how staff came to decide on the five or six grade
points used to determine the “natural grade” is not only confusing but doesn’t seem to comply
with the other sloping lots on our street. There doesn’t seem to be a uniform formula
determining the grade point but rather than the influence of their architect which is unfair to all
our neighbors. There is a 20ft difference in sloping height from the north side of the lot to the
south side but the owners of 1113 Kings Rd are still proposing over 29ft roof heights, hence this
variance hearing. The impact to our property, their “neighbor” and the surrounding homes does
not warrant approval and their current plans should be reconfigured to be more in compliance
with the surrounding homes. I, along with many other neighbors, do not want this massive
property to be built as proposed and would like to see the planning commission deny this request
and make the owners of 1113 Kings Rd reconfigure their proposed plans to limit the impact this
property will have not only on my property but my neighbors as well.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter and hope you will see all the negatively
impacting factors this new construction will have on our neighborhood.
TJ Williams
1110 Kings Rd
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
1110 Kings Rd View.jpg
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Cordoves, Giovanni <gcordoves@kbs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:52 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Reed Residence (1113 Kings Road) Variance Application – Planning
Commission Agenda Item 4, 5/23/2019
Attachments: REED Variance Letter 5-21-2019.pdf
To whom it may concern:
Please refer to the attached letter of support for the granting of the requested variance noted in the
subject line above.
Regards,
Giovanni Cordoves
Giovanni Cordoves | SVP, Acquisitions/Co-Director, Asset Management
800 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 | Newport Beach, CA 92660
Office: (949) 797-0324 | Website: www.kbs.com
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Reed Residence (1113 Kings Road) Variance Application – Agenda Item 4, 5/23/2019
Dear Chair Zak and Members of the Planning Commission:
The Reed residence design is compatible with the surrounding community and has my support for
a height variance due to the unique and large gully on the property. I have reviewed the plans and
the detailed explanations and conclusions within staff report and which clearly notes the variance
in question to be for a very modest area. I further support the variance because the over-height
features will not be visible from Kings Road or from the residences across the street as those
portions of the Reed residence would be located behind the height-compliant portions of the home.
In my opinion, this is a reasonable request for what is an extremely slight variance to accommodate
a uniquely burdened site and I urge the Planning Commission to approve the variance on May 23,
2019.
Sincerely,
Giovanni Cordoves
Senior Vice President, Acquisitions & Co-Director, Asset Management
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Evan Slavik <eslavik@markiv.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:02 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Attachments: Reed Residence Residential Variance Support Letter - 721 St James
Road.pdf
Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners,
Please find the attached letter in support of the Reed Residence Residential Variance (PA2019-
060). If you have any questions related to my position on this matter, please don’t hesitate to call.
Thank you,
Evan Slavik
President of Real Estate
Mark IV Capital, Inc.
4450 MacArthur Blvd. | 2nd Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
T 949.509.1444
F 949.509.1104
www.markiv.com
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners,
I reside that 721 St. James Road and I support the Reed residence application for a
variance. I have read the staff report and understand that the issuance of a variance to
be the correct course of action to preserve the homeowner’s right to enjoy their
property. If the variance were not granted a large portion of the property would be
unbuildable, which would deprive the Reeds of a substantial property right.
The staff report describes, in great detail, the unique topographical constraint that the
homeowner had to contend with when designing the home. It looks to me that much
time and consideration has been given on all accounts by City staff and the homeowner
to ensure that the height encroachments are truly a result of the gully and would not be
visually higher than an portion of the residence as viewed from Kings Road because
they are located behind the front of the structure, which does not need a variance.
It's clear that granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights of the homeowner.
Sincerely,
Evan Slavik
721 St. James Rd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Gretchen Krebs <gretchen@promogiant.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Road
Attachments: 245 Kings krebs .docx
Dear Planning Commission,
I hope this letter finds you well. I’ve attached a letter in support of the new build project at 1113 Kings Road.
Thank you,
Brian and Gretchen Krebs
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 20, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance Request (PA2019-060)
Dear Chair Zak:
I reside at 245 Kings and am in support a height variance for the residence at 1113 Kings Road. I was
really surprised to read in the City’s Staff Report that the homeowner, as a matter of right, could build the
entire frontage of the home up to 29 feet and a maximum of 29,000 square feet. Instead, the home is being
built to a maximum frontage height of 25.8 feet and is substantially less square footage, which is
completely contrary to the idea that the homeowner is attempting to “max out” the coverage as it relates
to building height or to square footage.
The homeowner’s lot is large and topographically challenged with multiple sloping angles, plain and
simple, and this shouldn’t deprive them from the rights that every other homeowner enjoys. They are not
requesting a variance for the setbacks or the square footage, and the height at the front of the house is
respectful considering they could build to 29 feet. The illustrations provided on page 8 of the staff report
presents a great visual for how minimal the areas of height encroachment are from Kings Road.
The homeowner rights should be upheld and a variance issued for the homeowner to be able to enjoy their
property in the same capacity as everyone else in the area.
Sincerely,
Brian Krebs
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jeanne Fobes <jeannefobes@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Height Variance Request: Property located at 1113 Kings Road
I write to request that you deny the request for a height variance on the subject property. This is
already one of the largest lots on Kings Road and its view of the harbor and the ocean is
remarkable. Surely this is enough!!! The purchasers knew what type of parcel it was when they
purchased 1113 Kings Road and should therefore, build to the current codes that apply and not
deviate from them in any manner.
Please ensure that the plans for this home comply with the existing set-backs and heights in
Cliff-Haven.
Thank you.
A constituent,
Jeanne Fobes (Newport Heights)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Elizabeth N. Gruber <dizzielizzie76@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:14 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Fwd: Gruber 2.docx
Attachments: Gruber 2.docx
>
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Reed Residence Residential Variance Item #4
Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners,
I live in Newport Heights and I fully support the requested height variance for 1113 Kings Road due to
the gully located on the property that slopes significantly in both a north-south direction, as well as east-
west direction. There are very few lots that possess such challenging topography in Newport Beach, and
the requested variance seems very reasonable.
The Reeds have designed a home that is compatible with our community despite the challenge created by
the topography. It is my belief that the new home with add value to my home and the surrounding neigh-
bors. I strongly urge you to support this variance.
Sincerely,
Liz Gruber
cc. James Campbell
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:32 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd - Opposition Letter from Setsuko Krickl (520 Kings Rd)
Attachments: Krickl Opposition Letter.pdf
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Portia <portiaweiss@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:24 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Cc: jaimeMurillo@aol.com; CityofNewportPlanningDepartment@aol.com
Subject: PA2019/060, Activity VA2019-002 Variance Request for 1113 Kings
Road
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Please do not grant the significant height variance to the applicants of 1113 Kings Road. One
variance leads to a chain of additional variances. Unnecessary variances break down the integrity
of our neighborhoods and creates detrimental division in our community. Building codes are
established to provide guidelines for all members of the community to follow and to maintain
social and architecturally aesthetic harmony.
Appreciatively,
Portia Weiss
421 San Bernardino Avenue
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: ghassem azadian <gazadian@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 4:25 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Reed Residence, Variance Request - Agenda Item #4
Attachments: 1121 Kings Road - Azadian and Reed.docx
Hello Chair Zak,
Attached please find my support letter for the variance request related to the Reed Residence.
Thank you
Gus Azadian
1121 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Capital One Public
May 21, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Attention: Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence, Variance Request – Agenda Item #4
Dear Chair Zak,
The Reed residence has my full support. As our immediate next-door neighbor, the Reeds have
been open and honest about their plans for their home. I have had the opportunity to see the
architectural model and understand the complexity of the slopes that form the gully for which the
variance is needed. I appreciate the outreach that the Reeds have done and I support their
variance application.
I also understand that the area where the variance is requested will not be visible from the street
and, in fact, the front of the home is being built to a height lower than the 29 feet maximum. I am
a strong supporter of property rights and the facts supporting a variance are quite clear.
- There is an existing variance for the property.
- The height variance is only requested for small areas that directly correspond to the gully
– and these areas are not visible from the street.
- The Reeds could build higher at the street level and have chosen to build several feet
lower than the 29’ height limit out of respect for the neighbors.
- Even without the variance the house could be built to 29’ at the street.
- Without the variance the house would need to be setback 19’ from the easterly property
line – a 19’ setback would be inconsistent with the pattern of existing development in the
neighborhood.
- There is no deed restriction limiting the height of the residence and the City does not
provide view protection for private views.
Please vote to approve the variance at your meeting on May 23, 2019. The Reed family should
be granted the variance and the afforded the right to build their home.
Sincerely,
Gus Azadian
1121 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:Portia Weiss
To:Planning Commissioners
Subject:PA2019/060, Activity VA2019-002 Variance Request for 1113 Kings Road
Date:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 6:03:33 PM
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Please do not grant the significant height variance to the applicant of 1113 Kings Road. One
variance leads to a chain of additional variances. Unnecessary variances break down the
integrity of our neighborhoods and creates detrimental division in our community. Building
codes are established to provide guidelines for all members of the community to follow and to
maintain social and architecturally aesthetic harmony.
Appreciatively,
Portia Weiss
421 San Bernardino Avenue
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jon Fosheim <jfosheim33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:27 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Fwd:
Attachments: Foshiem.docx
Please see the attached letter below for my full support of the variance proposed at 1113 Kings
Road.
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 22, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Variance VA2019-002
Dear Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners:
Until recently my wife and I lived immediately next door to the Reeds at 1101
Kings Rd. We now own a house just down the street from them (1501 Kings Rd).
We are in support of the requested height variance. The gully that is located
between the two homes is incredibly steep. There are already variances for the two
residences because of the gully.
As pointed out in the staff report, the portions of the home that exceed the height
limit will not cause a visual impact for the homes located across Kings Road or in
the greater community. These areas will not even be visible from Kings Road or
from across the street. However, these
over height areas would visible from my prior residence and it’s my opinion that
the Reeds have done a good job to minimize the massing in this area. They have
utilized additional setbacks at the upper level, down pitched the roof planes,
minimized the development on the eastern side of the property, and created several
patio areas which provide relief from a large structure.
The proposed home is designed on one of the biggest lots in the Newport Heights-
Cliff Haven community and it could be substantially larger than what they are
proposing. The new residence will be in character with the other homes in the
community. We are sorry that we could not attend the meeting in person as we will
be out of town. Please consider our strong support for the project and approve the
requested variance at your meeting on May 23.
Sincerely,
Jon and Penny Foshiem
1501 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92630
c.Jaime Murillo, Planner
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Gary Sokolich <Gary_Sokolich@dslextreme.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:35 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Road Variance VA2019-002
Honorable Planning Commissioners
As a resident of Newport Beach, who has lived at 801 Kings Road for the past thirty years, I am
writing to ask you to deny the requested height variance VA2019-002 pertaining to the proposed
construction of a 10800 sq ft residence at 1113 Kings Road.
There are may reasons why the requested variance should be denied. However, in this
communication I want to address the handful of emphasized bullet points in the section of the
Staff Report entitled "Required Variance Findings" .
1) The assertion by Staff that "There are special or unique circumstances or conditions
applicable to the subject property...that do not apply generally to other properties in the
vicinity....." is grossly misleading because it fails to paint a complete picture of the actual
situation. Specifically, it fails to point out the fact that the lot is considerably wider than adjacent
lots in order to compensate for the existence of the gully and to provide comparable buildable
area. So when viewed in terms of buildable area, the circumstances of the subject property are
not unique.
2) The assertion by Staff that "Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive
the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity" is preposterous,
absurd and demonstrably false. Aside from the presence and location of the gully, which is
compensated for by the extra width of the lot, the subject property has as much if not more
buildable area as any of the adjacent properties.
3) The assertion by Staff that "Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant" is the exact opposite of the reality of
the situation. What is appropriate and necessary is the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the nearby neighbors, and the only way to do that is to deny the requested
variance. .
4) The assertion by Staff that "Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege....." could not be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that granting the
requested variance is a perfect example of what constitutes special privilege.
5) The assertion by Staff that "Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
harmonious and orderly growth of the City" is naive, short sighted and denies the reality of the
situation. The fact of the matter is that the requested variance is both unnecessary and
inappropriate , and that approving it will set a very bad precedent that will have a detrimental
impact involving all future constructions on the south side of Kings Road for decades to come.
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
In addition to the comments above, I would like to also express my displeasure with and concern
about the blatant lack of objectivity that the Staff Report represents. The so-called "Findings"
are not findings at all. In reality, they are nothing other than a compilation of unsubstantiated
assertions and misrepresentations that reflect a clear bias in favor of the applicant and against the
impact of the proposed construction on nearby neighbors. In that regard, the Staff Report is a
disgrace, and those who prepared it and who approved it should be ashamed.
Lastly, whether the requested variance is granted or not, the construction of a new residence at
1113 Kings Road is going to have a detrimental impact on nearby neighbors. So the only choice
before the Planning Commission at this time is how detrimental the inevitable impact is going to
be.
W. Gary Sokolich, Ph.D.
Scientific & Technical Consultant
WGS & ASSOCIATES
801 Kings Road
Newport Beach CA 92663
,
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road | Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Josh Steinmann <josh.steinmann@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road | Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Mr. Murillo,
I own the property located at 910 Kings Road. I urge the Planning Commission to deny Resolution
PC2019-015 rejecting Variance No. VA2019-002 (Attachment No. PC 1).
The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report references two variances that the Planning
Commission has granted (i.e., VA1034 in 1973 and VA1150 in 1989) in order to support the required
findings to support the Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060). Specifically, the Staff Report states that
the prior granted variances support “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.”
But, the prior variances do not support this finding for the proposed variance for 1113 Kings Road. In
fact, the Staff Report states that the front of the residence is designed to a maximum height of 23.78
feet from existing grade at the front elevation. This design complies with the existing height
requirement. As such, the applicant and subject property is not deprived of the privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
Staff worked with the applicant to minimize the variance request. Those alternative options are
included on page 15 of the Staff Report. Arguably, requiring the applicant to reduce the depth of the
attached 1,295 square foot four-car garage, eliminate a main level patio roof and reduce the size of a
teen room in a 3,000 square foot, single family residence does not constitute deprivation of the
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
Further, the Staff Report states that these prior granted variances benefitting 1101 Kings Road permit a
maximum structure height of 45 feet 6 inches and a deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from
existing grade. By granting the proposed variance, the Planning Commission would expand the number
of variances along Kings Road and would create precedence for other properties to seek height
variances (up to 45 feet 6 inches) in order to enjoy the privileges of other properties in the vicinity under
an identical zoning classification.
We urge the Planning Commission to deny the requested variance and require the subject property to
comply with the existing height restriction.
Best Regards,
Josh Steinmann
910 Kings Road
(415) 518-9004
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 1:55 PM
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road
Attachments: Planning Commission Letter Re 1113 Kings Road 5-22-19.pdf
From: Edward Selich <edselich@roadrunner.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey,
Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman,
Lauren <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer,
Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>;
Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road
Dear Commissioners:
Please review the attached letter regarding 1113 Kings Road.
Edward Selich
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Garciamay, Ruby
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 3:26 PM
To: Lee, Amanda; Juarez, Karla
Subject: FW: Project at 1113 Kings Road
From: luke@thedrufamily.com <luke@thedrufamily.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 2:57 PM
To: Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov>; Garciamay, Ruby
<RGarciamay@newportbeachca.gov>; Mackinen, Traci <tmackinen@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter
<pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee
<llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren
<lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory
<kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Project at 1113 Kings Road
I am opposed the variance for the house at 1113 Kings Road. They are asking for a variance because of
the steep slope on the property. There are several reasons why this is now a valid reason for a variance;
1. All of the lots on the south side of Kings Road are on a similar slope
2. They had to know that there was a slope when they bought the Property.
3. There are many houses that are bigger that are under the height limit. They can go down to
bet more space.
The real question here is, why does the city have zoning rules and a general plan, when almost every
two weeks, there are projects before the planning commission for variances. Why do the residents of
Newport Beach continually having to go before the city with objections to variances.
Regards
Luke Dru
Cliff Haven
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jason Finney <jasonsfinney@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 3:58 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Reed Residence - Variance Application
May 22, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Variance Application – Agenda Item 4
Dear Chair Zak and Members of the Planning Commission:
I support the granting of the requested variance for the Reed residence for the following reasons:
There residence has been thoughtfully designed and fits the character of the
newer homes that are being redeveloped in the community.
The Reeds have been open and transparent with neighbors over the course of
the design of the home.
The gully hardship is the reason for the variance. If the home were being
built on a flat lot or a consistent slope there would be no question that the design
would be permitted by right.
Depriving the Reeds of the ability to build their home to the width of their
property in order to avoid building over the gully would be depriving them of
their property rights.
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
The portion of the roof that requires the variance is located in an area that will
not be seen from Kings Road or from the houses across the street. It is also not the
tallest part of the house so eliminating it won’t make the home any smaller.
Homes in that area on the bluffs of Kings Road have deed restrictions
limiting development heights to one-story. The Reeds do not, and they should
not be penalized for being a bluff top owner that can build up to two stories.
It’s clear from reading the Staff Report and reviewing the plans that the Reeds’ property possesses
unique and challenging topography. The granting of a variance will ensure that they are able to
continue to rightfully enjoy their property.
Sincerely,
Jason Finney
510 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 5:00 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Cc: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: Comment on PC Item 4 (Reed Residential Variance)
Attachments: 2019May23_PC_AgendaItem_4_Comments_JimMosher.pdf
Please find attached a brief comment on Item 4 on tomorrow's Planning Commission
agenda (the Reed Residential Variance, PA2019 -060) -- as much as I could complete
by the 5:00 p.m. deadline.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 23, 2019, Planning Commission Item 4 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 4. REED RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE (PA2019-060)
I am concerned that this proposal is being considered without any meaningful simulations of
what the completed project would look like from either Kings Road or Coast Highway.
In particular, Goal NR 23 of our General Plan is that “Development respects natural landforms
such as coastal bluffs,” to which end Policy NR 23.1 (“Maintenance of Natural Topography”)
was adopted to “Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site
buildings to minimize alteration of the site’s natural topography and preserve the
features as a visual resource.”
Nothing in the present proposal appears to further either that goal or its supporting policy.
As to whether the proposed development would actually be occurring on a coastal bluff, in
addition to the reference to the property as “bluff top” in Section 3.A.1 of the proposed
Resolution of Approval, it might be noted that the Land Use Element (see City Council
Resolution No. 1988-100) previous to the present one noted on page 8: “Natural coastal bluffs
represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. As used in this Section, "coastal
bluff' is any natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 %) or greater, with a
vertical rise of 25 feet or greater.” And as to whether there is an inherent right to develop slope
faces, it did not regard steeply sloping parts of lots as being developable at all: “Buildable Lot
Area. The buildable lot area is the net parcel area less any slope areas greater the Two to
One and less any submerged lot area.” (page 18)
Although it is an enduring mystery why Kings Road and the slopes below it are not in the
Coastal Zone, our City’s Coastal Land Use Plan (page 4-77) supports the notion they are
indeed coastal bluffs, and therefore a visual resource worthy of protection under the Natural
Resources Element our broader current General Plan:
“Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach. There are ocean facing coastal
bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. There are also
coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded
wetlands of the Banning Ranch property. Finally, there are coastal bluffs surrounding Lower
Newport Bay. These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to
Dover Drive and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open
ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline.
Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be
protected.”
In short, it is difficult to understand how the Planning Commission can be expected to evaluate
this proposal without a clearer exposition of how it impacts significant resources protected by
City policies not cited in the staff report.
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:TOMLU BAKER
To:Planning Commissioners; jaimeMurillo@aol.com; CityofNewportPlanningDepartment@aol.com
Cc:TOMLU BAKER
Subject:Variance---1113 Kings Road
Date:Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:26:02 AM
Planning Commissioners,
Please do not approve the variance of the project at 1113 Kings Road. The variance is not consistent or compatible
with the Cliffhaven/Newport Heights neighborhood. The height variance will negatively impact the view from
surrounding properties. It is difficult to imagine that the current proposed residential design (requiring variance) is
the only design that this site will accommodate. My understanding is that the Staff has offered multiple options to
the applicant who is not receptive and who persists on presenting the variance required design. The applicant should
be asked to refine the design such as no variance is necessary. It is suggested that this project be continued so that
variance eliminating design refinements may be accomplished by the applicant or the Planning Commission should
deny at this time the current proposed project at 1113 Kings Road.
Thanks you,
Tom Baker
Newport Heights
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 10:49 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd: Petitions 81-85 Opposing the Height Variance and New
Construction
Attachments: Petitions 81-85.pdf
TJ Williams
1110 Kings Rd
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:Gordon A
To:Planning Commissioners
Date:Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:14:35 PM
ear Newport Beach City Planning Commission Members,
My name is Gordon Adams. I was born and raised in Newport Beach. My wife and
I own 1800 Kings Rd. My mother and dad first moved to Kings Rd in 1977. My
purpose in writing to you all of you today, quite simply, is to solicit your support to
deny the variance exception being requested for 1113 Kings Rd. I'm not able to
attend tonight's meeting to present these points in person so putting my thoughts in
writing are the next best option.
Please consider the following points when making your decision. I'm sure some of
the points will be one's you've heard before but I hope you'll strongly consider the
much less obvious points that have very negative ramifications on our Kings Rd
community and the city at large.
The obvious:
1. Why should one homeowner be granted a variance when it will negatively affects
significantly more than one other homeowner. In this case the exception will
impact the views of significantly more than just the homeowner across the street.
So in this case one person gets the benefit and 6-8 homeowners will be permanently
negatively affected...and possibly their home values with it.
2. The slippery slope: Once we grant one exception it just keeps opening the
floodgates for more exceptions until eventually we don't have any controls. At the
current pace, it won't be long before the entire cliff side wipes out the views from
the street side. See the less so obvious impact of this below.
3. The homeowner requesting the variance has lived there for years so they had an
obligation to know what they could and could not build without a variance. How
big does a house need to be? I'm all for property owners being able to build their
dream home but not where they need a variance that comes at the expense of others.
The home we rebuilt did not have a single exception request.
The not so obvious:
1.These exceptions continue to pit neighbor against neighbor. In this case the
family requesting the variance intentionally hid the request from his "so called"
neighbor and tried to hide the notice for the meeting tonight in order to avoid the
obvious concern it would cause. Just think how you would feel if your "neighbor"
did the same thing to you. If we stop giving out these unnecessary variances people
will stop asking for them and neighbors won't be hiding from each other. Just
imagine how those neighbors are going to get along in the future. Obviously it's
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
going to permanently impact their relationship. Rather than building a community
these exceptions turn neighbors against each other. You all have the authority and
the responsibility to stop this from happening.
2. Why do Cameo Shores and Irvine Terrace have height restrictions that are
maintained. Obviously they did not want one neighbor from being able to
permanently negatively impact another neighbor and create the chaos that follows.
That's the chaos we have on Kings Rd. As a result, there is nothing close to a
neighborhood community on Kings Rd. We've been living here for two years and
you can feel the tension between the two sides of the street. We moved here from
Laguna Niguel and are amazed at how little community feel there is compared to
other Newport Beach communities. I guarantee the home height and variance
exception issue is a big reason. Every time a new homeowner tears down a home
on the cliff side the homeowners on the street side are in a panic that their views
and their home values are going take a hit.
Your job is to improve the lives of the people that live in Newport Beach. These
sorts of variances don't accomplish that and, in fact, they hurt our city. I hope you'll
take all of this in consideration when you vote on the issue before you tonight.
Please don't hesitate to email me back or call me to discuss any of these points.
Respectfully,
Gordon Adams
949 233 6936
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Lee, Amanda
Subject:FW: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Steinmann Response
Date:Thursday, May 23, 2019 3:59:36 PM
From: Pua Whitford <PWhitford@caaplanning.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 3:57 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Shawna Schaffner <sschaffner@caaplanning.com>
Subject: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 -
Steinmann Response
Hi Jaime,
We are providing this correspondence in response to a letter of opposition provided by Mr. Josh
Steinmann, dated May 22, 2019. Mr. Steinman raised issue with granting of the variance due to it
not meeting the finding that without it the property owner would be deprived of property privileges
enjoyed by other properties and that the issuance of the variance would expand the number of
variances along Kings Road.
The previous variance for the subject site was granted under the same condition and for the same
reason as the current variance is being requested. There are several multi-directional slopes on the
site that create a gully on the eastern edge of the subject site. The gully is pre-existing on the subject
site; and therefore, the previous variance was approved for the existing structure to allow the
structure to be built to what we observe as a uniform height, even at the point where the gully dips
down.
The frontage of the home along Kings Road has been designed as thoughtfully as possible so as not
to “max out” either the height or massing and does not require a variance for its features. The home
is terraced down the slope and the area that requires the variance will not be visible from Kings Road
or from the residences on the inland side of Kings Road.
A variance would not be necessary were it not for the topographic anomaly of the gully. Again, the
variance will not permit any roof features to be higher than any other part of the roof. In fact, the
area for which the variance is required is for the outer portion of eaves of the roof and at an
elevation much lower than the ridgeline of the roof. The requested variance accounts for the
mathematical calculation between grade of a parcel and the depth of the gully.
An aerial survey of the homes on Kings Road and in the surrounding community shows that the
development for nearly every property is completely up to the minimum setback which in most
cases is 4 feet. In order to avoid the gully the homeowner would need to set their home back 19 feet
from the property line. The existing structure was granted a variance due to the gully in order for the
homeowner to be able to build to the width of the property. The issuance of a variance would allow
the home to be built the width of the lot and afford the homeowner the same privilege as enjoyed
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
by the rest of the community.
The property at 1101 Kings Road is the immediate next-door neighbor to the subject property. As
identified in the Staff Report, this property shares the same topographic anomaly features as the
subject property. The explicit purpose for the variance request is to allow the main level and a small
portion of the upper eaves and deck the home to be built the width of the property by accounting
for depth created by the gully at the eastern boundary of the subject site.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Pua
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 4:42 PM
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda
Item #4 - Sokolich Response
From: Pua Whitford <PWhitford@caaplanning.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 4:04 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Shawna Schaffner <sschaffner@caaplanning.com>
Subject: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Sokolich
Response
Hi Jaime,
This correspondence is provided in response to a letter of opposition provided by Mr. Gary Sokolich,
dated May 22, 2019. Mr. Sokolich raised several concerns and assertions. Our responses are
concentrated on the issues he raised as numbered 1 through 5 in his letter.
1. There are several lots in the area that would be considered “considerably wider than adjacent
lots.” For example:
The subject property 1113 Kings Road is 17,745 sq.ft. and 84 feet wide.
1201/1121 Kings Rd (next to subject property) was originally 21,471 sq.ft. prior to the
lot split in 1973 (122 feet wide)
1021 Kings Road is 19,013 sq.ft. (92 feet wide)
1211 Kings Road is 14,925 sq.ft. (75 feet wide)
1421 Kings Road is 14,080 sq.ft. (80 feet wide)
615 Kings Road is 18,247 sq.ft. (121 feet wide)
801 Kings Road is 11,667 sq.ft. (70 feet wide)
Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the subject lot was purposefully subdivided as a
larger lot to account for the gully, the adjoining neighbor to the east at 1101 Kings Road does
not have a wider or larger than average lot and is also challenged topographically by the gully
and requires a variance for main level development, just as the subject property. There is no
statistical for historical data to support the commenters assertions that the reason for the width
or size of the subject property is to compensate for the gully.
2. There is no statistical or historical data to support the commenters assertions regarding the
reason for the width or size of the subject property or the widths or sizes of any of the other
larger properties on the blufftop on Kings Road.
A survey of aerial mapping shows that the prevailing development in the community is for
homes to be built the entire width of the property. A variance was granted for the existing
structure on the subject site due to the constraints of the gully. The issuance of a variance would
allow the home to be built the width of the lot and afford the homeowner the same privilege as
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
enjoyed by the adjoining neighbor who also shares the gully and requires a variance for
development, and the rest of the community.
3. The frontage of the home along Kings Road will be built to a maximum height of 25-8 feet when
a maximum of 29 feet is permitted, and has been designed as thoughtfully as possible so as not
to “max out” either the height or massing, and does not require a variance for its features. The
home is terraced down the slope and the area which requires the variance is on the main level
and small portion of the back corner of the upper level and upper deck which will not be visible
from Kings Road or from the residences inland of Kings Road.
A variance would not be necessary were it not for the topographic anomaly of the gully. Again,
the variance will not permit any roof features to be higher than any other part of the roof. In
fact, the area for which the variance is required is for the eaves for the roof and is located at an
elevation lower than the ridgeline of the roof.
The hardship related to the limitation of buildable area is due to the presence of the gully
adjacent to the east property line. The existing slope of the eastern property line is 40%
whereas the existing slope adjacent to the west property line is 5%. Avoiding the existing gully
would reduce the buildable width of the structure from 80 ft. wide to 55 ft. wide (32%
reduction), which would be a hardship. The requested variance only accounts for the
mathematical calculation between how the City determines the overall grade of a parcel and the
actual grade.
4. There is no evidentiary data to support this assertion. The requested variance is for an existing
condition. A variance was issued for the existing structure at the exact location and due to the
same topographical constraints.
5. The over-height features will be located on the main level and small portion of the back corner
of the upper level which will not be visible from the street. They will not, themselves, cause
interference with the coastal views of adjacent or neighboring properties. Although the over-
height features are calculated as such based on the City’s zoning code, the observed heights will
not be taller than other area of the residence.
The proposed two-story residence will replace an existing one-story residence. The portion of
the residence that may cause limitations to coastal views for the across the street neighbor
would be the portion of the residence on the Kings Road frontage. This portion of the residence
will be 25-8 feet in height and is well within the 29-foot height limit.
While certain lots along Kings Road are subject to private deed restrictions related to view
protection, there is no such deed restriction on 1113 Kings Road. In addition, there are no view
corridors within the project vicinity that would be impacted by the proposed project.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Pua
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Lee, Amanda
Subject:FW: 1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx
Date:Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:09:53 PM
From: Carolyn <clynn131@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:09 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx
See below
Carolyn Reed
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anne Adams <annymac17@gmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2019 at 5:40:42 PM PDT
To: Carolyn <clynn131@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx
Hi Carolyn,
I just spoke with my husband Gordon (very quick call as he is playing in a
tournament at the moment) and he said he had sent a letter earlier today largely
based on the information he’d been given and the overall desire to stop neighbors
from fighting with each other. He was suggesting a solution to stop the neighbor
vs neighbor situation from happening again by suggesting a no variance policy for
the entire area as other neighborhoods have done. I explained to him that the
information we were given was wrong, that we had been mislead.
We didn’t get to keep talking but I forwarded the email you sent me so if he has a
break he can read it.
I was confused when the letter you penned mentioned “a letter “ that had been
sent earlier today....now I understand. I did not know one had been sent.
I have no problem writing a letter that explains I was misinformed and that my
signature on the petition was only in support because of the lies I had been told.
I am sorry that you are having to deal with this.
Blessings,
Annie
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4h Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Sent from my iPhone
On May 23, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Carolyn <clynn131@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi- it was so nice chatting with you today. I hope to chat again under
different circumstances in the future. Thank you again for taking the
time to listen and understand what we are asking for. Below is the
letter you can email to the city at
planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov. Please free to modify
as you see fit.
Carolyn Reed
<1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx>
Carolyn Reed
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4h Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Anne Adams <annymac17@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:25 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: New information regarding property on Kings Rd
Hi,
I recently signed a petition stating I was against the property at 1113 Kings Rd getting a height
variance. My signing of that petition was based on information that I have found out to be
incorrect. My understanding was that the height variance would be from street level and would
block many views from neighbors across the street. The misunderstanding is my fault as I failed
to do my homework and clearly grasp what was being proposed. I had a visit from the
homeowner today that explained what I had misunderstood.
I now understand that the variance is not for street level height adjustment and wish to resend
my petition support.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Annie Adams
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4h Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Reed Residential
Variance
1113 Kings Road
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
May 23, 2019
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Aerial
Community Development Department -Planning Division 2
Cliff Haven
Single-Family Zone
Balboa Bay Club
Planned Community
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Aerial
Community Development Department -Planning Division 3
North
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing
Development
Northside of
Kings Rd
Community Development Department -Planning Division 4
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing
Development
Southside of
Kings Rd
Community Development Department -Planning Division 5
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Grade
Comparison
Community Development Department -Planning Division 6
Typical Slope Direction on Kings Rd
Gully feature creates unique
slope configuration on
subject lot
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Subject
Property
Community Development Department -Planning Division 7
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing
Variances
Community Development Department -Planning Division 8
VA1034 (1973)
45’6” Home
VA1053(1976)
31’6” Garage
VA1150 (1989)
36’6” Deck
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Project Details
Community Development Department -Planning Division 9
23.7’25.3’
Grade Plane
•10,803 sf single-family dwelling
•1,508 sf 4-car garage
•3 levels (daylighting basement)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Variance
Findings
Special or unique circumstances
Preservation and enjoyment of
property rights
Not a special privilege
Not detrimental
Community Development Department -Planning Division 10
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Gully
Constraint
Community Development Department -Planning Division 11
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Gully
Constraint
Community Development Department -Planning Division 12
26’ below
front PL
20’
difference
between
west and
east PL
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Effect of Gully
on Design
Community Development Department -Planning Division 13
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Effect of Gully
on Design
Community Development Department -Planning Division 14
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Over Height
Features
Community Development Department -Planning Division 15
1.13’
1.29’1.85’
1.74’
3.07’
4.47’
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Effect of Gully
on Design
Community Development Department -Planning Division 16Kings Rd19’85.5 feetLimits
buildable
width from
90 % of lot
to 72%
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Variance
Effects on
Surrounding
Properties
Community Development Department -Planning Division 17
Roof and rail elements
located behind
conforming structure as
viewed from Kings Rd.
Third story elements
viewed from easterly
neighbor setback
Main level elements open
in nature to reduce bulk
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Recommended
Action
Conduct a public hearing
Find project exempt from CEQA (Class 3 New
Construction)
Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-015 approving Variance
No. VA2019-002
Community Development Department -Planning Division 18
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
For more
information
Contact Questions?Jaime Murillo
949-644-3209
jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Community Development Department -Planning Division 19
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
1113 Kings Road -Variance Request
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
1113 Kings Road -Overview
•Lot with a 26.5 foot deep gully on the eastern property boundary
•Variance requested for height increases on eastern side of property
only
•Areas where variance requested are below height-compliant portions
of house –not visible from the front of the house
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
1113 Kings Road –Proposed Variance Request
•3 areas require variance
•Upper level eaves 57 square feet
•Upper level deck and railing 26 square feet
•Main level office roof and covered patio roof 270 square feet
•Largest encroachment above the 29’ height limit is at the main level
of the house
•Even a single-story home would need a variance because of the
gully
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing Variance 1113 Kings Road
•Existing variance to allow garage over 24’ height limit
•RV Garage is 15’ from existing grade
•Variance is required for rear of garage, which exceeds 24’ because of
the gully
•Variance allows height of 31.5’
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing Variances 1101 Kings Road
•Residence immediately east has two variances
•Shared gully created need for variances
•Existing variances allow:
•Residence 45’ tall –29’ height limit
•Covered decks 36.5’ tall –24’ height limit
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Neighbor Outreach
•Alerted across the street neighbors in fall 2018
•Follow up through winter and spring
•Requested feedback
•Residents on either side of 1113 Kings support the variance
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Plan Changes and Revisions
•Working with City Staff completed 8 plan revisions since March
•Revisions focused on reducing over-height roof areas
•Removal of exterior decks and covered patios
•Removal of enclosed rooms at rear of house
•Re -design of upper level
•Reduction in footprint of upper level
•Change to central roof ridge to lower height and provide more
valleys
•Reduction of height of eastern roof ridge
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Plan 1
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Plan 8
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
1113 Kings
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing with Proposed Outline
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing with Proposed Overlay
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Existing Variance –Height to 31.5 Feet
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Proposed Variance –Height to 32.07 Feet
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Ridge elevation 111’
Building height 22’9”
Eave elevation 108’
Building height 30-30.8’
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Eave elevation 108’
Building height 30.8
Ridge height 111’
Building height 22’9”No variance required
Variance
required
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Eave elevation 108’
Building height 19’3”
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Conclusion
•Variance request represents increase in ½ foot beyond
existing variance –from 31.5 to 32.07 at the highest point
•Areas of house which require variance not visible from street
•Located behind height-compliant sections of the house
•Front elevation designed several feet below the height limit
•No variance for the front of the house
•Variance does not increase square footage
•Main level –or single story components –require variance
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Requested Action
•Approve variance consistent with Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Photo from TJ Williams
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Proposed Massing
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Massing of 29’ Height at Street
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4j Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Lee, Amanda
Subject:FW: Pictures for monitor
Date:Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:40:13 AM
From: Amy Williams <amy@rovewithme.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 7:03 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; jaimemurillo@aol.com
Subject: Pictures for monitor
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4k Additional Materials Received At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4k Additional Materials Received At Meeting
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)