Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAA Planning Resposne to Chatten-Brown 9-10-19 w attachments 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 285 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599 September 10, 2019 Mr. Jaime Murillo, AICP City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Response to Chatten-Brown Carstens & Minteer LLP Letter dated September 6, 2019, Appeal of Variance No. VA2019-002 Dear Mr. Murillo: This correspondence is provided in response to the above-referenced letter from Chatten-Brown Carstens & Minteer LLP Letter (“the Chatten-Brown letter”) dated September 6, 2019, Appeal of Variance No. VA2019-002. CAA Planning represents the applicants, Greg and Carolyn Reed, in their request for a variance, which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2019. Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) appealed the Planning Commission approval on June 5, 2019. I would like to respectfully point out that the Chatten-Brown letter makes assertions that are unsupported by fact, or are misleading. Those assertions are noted and corrected throughout this response. The Chatten-Brown letter raises three general areas of concern, including that the City is unable to make the required variance findings, that the proposed residence would be incompatible with the neighborhood, and that the integrity of the City’s planning process is endangered by upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance. A response to those three issues is below. I. Variance Findings The Chatten-Brown letter ignores the hardship that the existing gully creates when applying the Zoning Code height limit to the site. While many sites along Kings Road slope north to south down the bluff, there is a 40% slope from the street to the bottom of gully (north to south), and a 22% slope from west to east. These separately sloping surfaces create a distinct hardship. The City has approved three separate variances for this precise gully. The gully continues to preclude the development of the site in a manner that does not generally occur. The Chatten-Brown letter asserts, “it is clear that the property can (and does) support a single- family home without the variance, and that the Applicant seeks the variance to maximize the scale and future value of the proposed building” (page 3). This is factually incorrect. The property does not currently support a single-family home without a variance. A variance for the existing garage was approved in 1973. It is not possible to build on the eastern portion of the property affected by Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5 the gully without exceeding the City’s height limit. Page 5 of the Chatten-Brown letter acknowledges that “Variances were granted for 1113 Kings Road to build the existing 3,013- suqare foot home.” Chatten-Brown appears to argue both sides of this argument in attempting to discredit the City’s findings of fact in support of the variance. The Chatten-Brown letter claims that the variance is not required for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. However, the largest area of roof and covered patio that exceeds the height limit is on the first floor, totaling 59 square feet of roof and 211 square feet of covered patio. Even a single-story residence requires a variance in this location. The second-story roof equals 57 square feet, and the railing is 26 square feet. These are minor encroachments given the dramatic topography of the site. Where the City’s Zoning Code requires a 4-foot setback from the side yard, a 19-foot setback (4 feet plus an additional 15 feet) would be required to build a single-story residence in compliance with the height limit. The Planning Commission has justified the topographic hardship of this gully three separate times in approving variance VA1033 for the subject property, and variances VA1034 and VA1150 for the immediate adjacent property, which shares the gully. Related to the issue of whether the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege, the question framed on page 6 of the Chatten-Brown letter is whether the landowner will be prevented from using their property in the same manner as surrounding property owners, and the letter further specifies that the goal is equality with surrounding landowners. As detailed above and below, the answer to that questions is yes, the landowner will be prevented from using their property in the same manner as surrounding property owners, because even a single-story residence would require a variance. Nearly every residence on Kings Road is built from side yard to side yard, across the frontage of the site, maximizing the site coverage closest to the street. The first 20 feet of the residence could be built side to side, but once the topography becomes over-steep 19-foot setback would be required where the City’s Zoning Code standard is a 4-foot side yard setback. While the house is designed to substantially step back from west to east in order to following the natural topography, requiring a further setback would eliminate the functional use of the home on the eastern side of the property. As such, the variance is necessary to allow for development of the lot in the same manner as the surrounding property owners. The front of the proposed residence has a height of 22 feet 9 inches on the eastern side of the property, which is substantially below the 29-foot height limit. Of the approximately 50 homes on Kings Road located on the bluff above Coast Highway, 36% of the homes are two stories. The proposed project is compatible with those homes. It is well under the height limit as viewed from the street, and the adjacent property owner has a residence that is 48 feet in height, where the proposed project seeks a maximum height of 32.07 feet at the rear of the residence. This further Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 3 of 5 demonstrates that the property owners would be prevented from using their property in the same manner as surrounding property owners. On the topic of whether the variance will be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City and constitute a hazard to the community, the answer is clearly no. The Chatten-Brown letter asserts that variance would block public views of the ocean from Kings Road. This is unsupported by facts. The attached photograph taken from Google Maps shows that there is no public view of the ocean from Kings Road through this property (Attachment 1). The variance is required for the rear of the house and is blocked from view by the front of the house that is well under the height limit. Therefore, the claim that the “variance’s contribution to these lost public views are a hazard to the public convenience and interest to those in the neighborhood” is unfounded. Finally, on the topic of conformance to the City’s General Plan, the Chatten-Brown letter contends that the project is inconsistent with General Plan Policies NR23.1 and LU5.1.5. Policy NR23.1 relates to minimizing alteration of a site’s natural topography and preserving the features as a visual resource. While the variance has no bearing on the issue of terracing down the bluff, the variance will provide certainty as to the location of the house relative to the bluff. General Plan Policy LU5.1.5 is related to compatibility with neighborhood density, scale, and street-facing elevation. As detailed above, the variance does not affect the density, scale, or street-facing elevation of the house, and there is no conflict with this policy. Rather, without the requested relief, a house that is larger and with a more imposing street-facing elevation could be built by right. Upholding the Planning Commission approval of the variance will provide certainty related to compliance with these General Plan policies. II. Incompatible with Neighborhood The size of the residence is not germane to the variance. The roof and railing elements that are over-height are not visible from the front of the house and are behind height-compliant sections of roof. However, if the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance were not upheld, the form and function of the residence would be impacted. It is not possible to simply “cut off” these section of roof and railing without adjusting both the interior layout and the exterior roof lines of the house. Approximately 760 square feet would have to be removed from the plan, as depicted on Attachment 2. While the direct square footage lost would be 760 square feet, the layout would be affected, providing no point of entry to bedroom 2. In order to relocate the square footage elsewhere within height compliant portions of the property, the bulk and massing as viewed from the street and from the western property line would likely be substantially altered. More intensity could be developed in the front of the house, where the design currently depicts a deeply recessed entry approximately set back more than 32 feet from the street. Additional square footage could also be moved to the west of the property, pushing the footprint well south of the Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 4 of 5 current location. In addition, the easterly roof line could be dramatically steepened, creating a very long and angular roof line. Each of these alternatives, while potentially avoiding the variance, would decrease the compatibility of the design with the neighborhood. Where the current design provides articulation and many areas of relief well under the height limit at the street, a fully height- compliant design would be more monolithic at the street, and would provide a “wing” that would severely protrude on the west. The variance allows a more uniform design across the width of the property, which is the prevailing style of development in the neighborhood. The Chatten-Brown letter presents misleading and incorrect information in making the point that the design is not compatible with the neighborhood. On page 8, the Chatten-Brown letter claims that the City has granted a variance for four homes on Kings Road. The attached Kings Road variance summary table shows that the City has in fact granted nine distinct variances for six different properties on Kings Road (Attachment 3). Also, on page 8 of the Chatten-Brown letter, a statement is made that “Currently, the largest home on the bluff side of Kings Road is approximately 8,800 square feet. The average home on the bluff is 4,500 square feet.” These statements are both unsupported by facts, and are misleading. In researching the size of existing residences, City Staff provided a list of the majority of residences built since the 1992, which are provided on Attachment 4. The largest residences are 9,505 square feet, 9,308 square feet, 8,259 square feet (plus a 1,035-square-foot garage = 8,754 square feet) and 7,895 square feet (plus a 859- square-foot garage = 8,754 square feet). At least four separate homes on Kings Road are the same approximate size as the Chatten-Brown letter claims is the single largest. With respect to the claim that the average size of the homes on the bluff is 4,500 square feet, while there is no supporting documentation for this claim, if it were true, it is likely because of homes originally constructed in the 1950’s. Homes constructed in the 1950’s were considerably smaller compared to houses within the past 30 years. With the exception of two or three lots, this neighborhood was fully built out by 1963, as shown on the attached aerial photograph (Attachment 5). In reviewing homes built in the past 30 years, the attached table demonstrates that the average size of homes constructed on the bluff side of Kings Road is over 7,000 square feet (Attachment 4). The size of the proposed house is not derived from the variance, and the lack of accuracy or context related to the claims presented in the Chatten-Brown letter is troubling because the letter attempts to paint a picture of neighborhood compatibility that is incorrect. III. Integrity of Planning Decision Related to the topic of the integrity of Newport Beach’s planning decisions, the City’s Planning Commission weighed this topic and carefully deliberated on the merits of this particular property before voting 5-0 with 2 abstentions, in support of the variance. Each variance request is considered on its own merits and is independent of whether other variances have been granted in the City. While three separate variances have been approved by the City for this particular gully, the City has provided a distinct analysis related to the specific facts set forth by the proposed Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 5 of 5 project. This careful analysis is set forth in the City Staff Report and detailed findings of fact. There is nothing contained within the Chatten-Brown letter disproving the facts set forth by the City. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer Attachments 1 – Photograph of Kings Rd. 2 – Area Requiring Relocation (760 sf) 3 – Kings Rd. Variance Summary Table 4 – Table of Average Home Sizes on the Bluff Side of Kings Rd. 5 – Aerial Photograph from 1963 Image capture: Nov 2017 © 2019 Google Street View - Nov 2017 Newport Beach, California Google 1113 Kings Rd KINGS ROAD VARIANCE INFORMATIONAddress Variance Number DescriptionApproved Action Date120 Kings Place VA1146 A request to exceed the 24 foot average roof height maximum with a 27 foot average roof height NO 12/8/1988116 Kings Place VA1224 To exceed the 24 foot height limit by approximately 11 feet NO 1/21/1999607 Kings Road VA1086 To exceed the 24 foot height limit by approximately 3 feet YES 7/9/1981709 Kings Road VA2006‐003 To exceed the height limit by six inchesWITHDRAWN 4/18/20071011 Kings Road VA2015‐004 To exceed the 24 foot height limit by 7 feet, 7 inchesWITHDRAWN 10/6/20161021 Kings Road VA2001‐003 To allow an existing, non‐permitted deck trellis to exceed the 24 foot height limit by approximately 5 feet YES 10/4/20011101 Kings Road VA1150 To permit the expansion of an existing exterior deck ‐ allowed under a previous variance ‐ which exceeds the 24 foot height limit YES 2/23/19891101 Kings Road VA1034 To exceed the 24/28 foot height limitYES 8/16/19731113 Kings Road VA1033 To permit the construction of a deatached garage that exceeds the 24/28 foot height limit YES 7/19/19731113 Kings Road VA1053 *REHEARING* To permit the construction of a detached garage that exceeds the 24/28 foot height limit NO 5/20/19761201 Kings Road VA1031 To allow the construction of a single family residence with a maximum height limitation of 35 feet YES 6/11/19731201 Kings Road VA1237 To exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 to 10 feet YES 1/9/20011201 Kings Road VA2002‐002 To amend VA1237 to further exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 to 10.17 feet YES 5/9/20021821 Kings Road VA1215 To exceed the height limit for portions of the third floor ranging from 1 to 8 feet, allow a covered balcony to exceed the height limit by 1YES 11/6/1997 AVERAGE FLOOR AREA (BLUFF ONLY) Kings Road Address Year Built Bluff ?House (sf) Garage (sf) Total 615 1997 Y 5225 1093 6318 603 2007 Y 7980 7980 607 2004 Y 5351 5351 311 2000 Y 6511 771 7282 303 1992 Y 4370 652 5022 100 2013 Y 6733 856 7589 104 2013 Y 7895 859 8754 1301 2015 Y 5242 827 6069 1311 2005 Y 6182 817 6999 1401 2010 Y 5080 400 5480 1511 2014 Y 8259 1035 9294 1611 2005 Y 5227 582 5809 1721 2005 Y 5406 5406 1821 1998 Y 9308 9308 1831 1990 Y 5432 685 6117 112 2011 Y 9505 9505 Average w/o Garage 6482 Average w/Garage 7018 5653920.2 1963 = 500'