Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190410_Findings1 REQUIRED FINDINGS – VARIANCE (PLANNING) In accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code (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 subject property possesses a unique circumstance that is not generally possessed by other properties located in the R-1 zoning designation in that it is located on a severely sloping site. 2. The Planning Commission previously found in the granting of a height Variance VA 1053 “That 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.” 3. At the time VA 1053 was issued, Planning Staff noted “It 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.” 4. The property slopes dramatically along the easterly property line where there is more than 20 feet of fall between the street and the first 30 feet of the property. 5. Slopes on Kings Road, where the subject property is located, climbs from west (86.13) to east (89.41) by 3.28 feet (4%). 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. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of homeownership privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. There are numerous homes along the south side of Kings Road which are at or near the 29 foot height limit. 2. The entire front of the house, facing the street, could be built to 29 feet in height without a variance. The first point of encroachment into the height limit is located 22 feet from the front setback and will be blocked from view by the portion of the roof that is within the height limit. 2 3. The property is located within an R-1 zoning designation and the strict and equal application of the Zoning Code requirements for all of the R-1 lots would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties as there are only limited number of properties impacted by slopes. 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 grant of a variance for the preservation of the applicant’s rights to enjoy a home similar in style, size, and character to the surrounding homes is necessary due to the severe slope of the subject property. 2. Granting of the variance due to the backyard slope is necessary to permit the height increase for approximately 196 square feet (3%) of roof area to exceed the 29-foot height limit and for 150 square feet (2.4%) of deck with railing to exceed the 24-foot height limit. 3. The over-height areas of the residence are located in the areas where the slope differentials can be most challenging and granting the variance is necessary for a residence with a functional and architecturally pleasing design. 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. Approval of the variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege, as there are a limited number of residences located along the slope on Kings Road. 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. 2. The request for a variance to increase of approximately 196 square feet (3%) of roof area over the 29-foot height limit and 150 square feet (2.4%) of deck area with railing over the 24-foot height limit. 3. Properties on Kings Road are characterized by large homes and varying styles of architecture. Some residences are monolithic and are built up to the 29’ height limit. The proposed residence will provide articulation and will be 4-5 feet lower than the 29’ height limit. 3 4. The variance would not grant a privilege beyond the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 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 the height increase of approximately 196 square feet (3%) of roof area with railing over the 29-foot height limit. The remaining 5,986 square feet of the residence will be under the 29-foot height limit. 2. The over-height area of the residence is located in a challenging area due to sloped topography of the subject site that also in an area that benefitted visually from architectural relief and the roof has been designed with the minimum slope required by the City to reduce the areas which encroach into the 29-foot height limit. 3. The granting of a variance will allow for the deck with railing to encroach into the 24-foot height limit. While this area is lower than the roof line and will not be visible from the street, the height limit is reduced because the area is a flat deck. Approximately 150 square feet (2.4%) of deck with railing encroaches into the 24-foot height limit. Elimination of this area would create displeasing architecture, essentially creating a hole in the house. 4. The over-height area of the deck and railing is due to the challenging sloped topography of the site. Only a small segment of the deck railing is over-height and attempting to lower the height of the deck with railing would create an uneven deck or a deck that would not line up height-wise to the primary residence structure. 5. The residence can be primarily viewed from Kings Road, and to a much lessor degree the residence can be seen very limitedly from Coast Highway and surrounding roadways. The over-height features will not be seen from Kings Road and will not create visual impacts on surrounding areas or roadways. 6. The proposed residence could be built to 29’ in height across the entire front of the property. While the proposed structure is lower than allowed, the small portion of roof and deck railing requiring the variance will not be visible from the street and will not impact views from the northerly side of the street. 7. The increased roof height and deck with railing height will not be determinantal to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardized, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 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. 4 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is designated for single-unit residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services. 2. The granting of the variance allows the applicant to enjoy and maximize property rights afforded to similar properties in the same zoning designation. 3. The proposed variance request provides the applicant an opportunity to increase the height of a portion of the roof and deck with railing. The zoning code provides flexibility in the 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 easement for this property. The height variance is appropriate for this project. 4. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area.