Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Navai Residence Variance No 1237�EwvoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT > a 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: July 25, 2000 Agenda Item No.: 18 Staff Person: James Campbell (949)644 -3210 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Variance No. 1237, Navai Residence (Jim Navai, appellant) ADDRESS: 1201 Kings Road PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. OWNER: Jim Navai, Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN: Single Family Detached ZONE: R -1 CITY ACTION: Planning Commission Denial on May 18, 2000 APPEAL FILED: May 31, 2000 HEARING REQUIRED: Within 30 days if appeal filing or prior to June 30, 2000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and by denying the appeal. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to approve the appeal, and thereby approve the variance and project. Additionally, the Council can modify the project or refer the project back to the Planning Commission with instructions. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and attached garage. To the north: Across King Road are single family detached homes To the east: Are single family detached homes To the south: Commercial properties located on West Coast Highway (car wash, auto dealer) To the west: Single family detached homes Variance No. 1237 July 25, 2000 Page 2 Background This item was continued from June 27, 2000 at the request of the applicant. On May 18, 2000, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 1237, and the findings supporting the denial are contained in Exhibit No. 1. The applicant and owner filed an appeal to the case within the 14 -day appeal period. The subject site is located along Kings Road in Cliff Haven and zoned R -1. The owner and appellant requested approval of a variance to allow the construction of an 852 square foot second story addition to his existing 2,868 square foot single family residence (with an existing 506 square foot garage) of which portions of the addition exceed the permitted height limit of 24 feet. The addition would add a third master bedroom, bath and walk -in closet. The project is more fully described and analyzed in attached Planning Commission staff reports (Exhibits No. 2 & 3). Discussion and Recommendation The appellant indicates in the appeal application that all other properties on Kings Road who have requested variances have received one. This is indeed the case although two variances were denied for Kings Place that is a continuation of Kings Road above the bluff near Dover Road. The appellant believes that his project was singled out for denial for arbitrary reasons. Staff researched the past variances for the bluff side of Kings Road and all of them were granted based upon the severe topography of the lots. The City has approved 5 height variance requests in this area at 607 Kings Road (3 feet in 1981), 1113 Kings Road (10 feet in 1973), 1101 Kings Road, (20 feet in 1989), 1700 Kings Road (1 foot in 1993) and most recently 1821 Kings Road (8 feet in 1997). On April 13, 2000, the Planning Commission first considered the project. The Commission believed that the project could be redesigned to reduce the height by other design options or to eliminate the need for a variance by making a one -story addition to the front of the house. The Planning Commission directed the appellant to redesign the project requesting that the height encroachment be reduced to the maximum extent. The applicant chose to reduce the overall height of the addition by one foot. Staff identified in the May 28, 2000 Planning Commission staff report that there are several design options that could further reduce severity of the encroachment or eliminate the need for a variance altogether. These options were communicated to the appellant prior to the May 18, 2000 continued hearing. The appellant did not attempt to significantly redesign the project to reduce the severity of the encroachment or eliminate it after agreeing that the project could be redesigned to conform. The applicant's justification for the variance centered around the fact that the design preserved some of the view through the site as the addition would only occupy the eastern 2/3 of the lot. Designing an addition that complies with the height restriction could entail a two story addition over the buildable full width of the lot, but the depth of the proposed addition would need to be reduced in order for the addition to comply while creating a desirable and livable design. The applicant contends that this type of re- design would potentially block more views, be more bulky and less attractive. Staff and the Planning Commission agree that a two story addition that occupied the full width of the lot would decrease views, but basing the approval upon design and variance No. 1237 July 25, 2000 Page 3 not strictly on the physical constraints of the property is not valid. Approval on these grounds creates the situation where the view could not be protected in the future, which was the basis for the approval. The only valid basis for approval of a variance is a physical characteristic of the property such as size, shape topography, location, etc. that deprives the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification through the strict application of the Zoning Code. If the variance is granted based upon the physical constraint of the property, which in this case would be the severe topography, the city determines that application of the height limit unfairly restricts the development of the property. If making this finding based upon the design that preserves a portion of the view, there is no way the city could restrict a future addition that might even exceed the height limit due to the fact that the previous determination that the height limit unfairly restricts the property was already made and the topography constraint would remain. Denial of a future addition based upon the loss of the view would contradict the earlier approval and then the basis for the earlier approval is eliminated. In recognizing this fact, as well as the possibility to design an addition within the height limit, the Planning Commission determined that the limited findings for variance approval should not be made. The Commission made it clear that each variance request is considered upon the facts and circumstances of the lot and project in question, and that past approvals should not be construed as precedent setting. The appellant presently enjoys significant use of his property and denial of the appeal and project would not be considered a diminishment of his property rights or a taking. The appellant has not raised sufficient evidence of discrimination that would warrant reconsideration, and therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. If the City Council believes that the topography unfairly restricts the development of this property, approval of the project should not be based upon a design consideration such as the preservation of a view. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits: Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Send r Planner r/ zz 1. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated May 18, 2000. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 18, 2000. 3. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 13, 2000. 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2000. 5. Appeal application and justification. 6. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations (separate). F:\Usem\PLN\Sh=d \IPLANCOM \2000\04- 13pc\NavaiResidenw \V 1237 appeal.doc Variance No. 1237 July 25, 2000 Page 4 FILE COPY .City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road (Continued from the 4/13/00 meeting) Variance No. 1237 Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. Commissioner Kiser asked what could be built without any variance, and what the height and setbacks of the proposed structure would be. Mr. Campbell, Senior Planner explained that the existing setback proposed is 12- feet, the setback requirement is a minimum of 10 -feet. The addition could be pulled 2 feet closer to Kings Road without the need for a variance. The existing structure is currently 4 feet below the 24 -foot height limit (flat roof) at the addition's closest point to Kings Road. The addition could be 10 1/2 feet wider in keeping with the setback requirements. The vertical encroachment as revised is up to a maximum of 9 -feet high away from Kings Road. Jim Naval, 1201 Kings Road, applicant explained that he had been told by the real estate agents when he purchased this home that most people who had asked for a variance, had been granted one by the City. He stated that he then purchased the house based on that information. As this house has only two bedrooms, he worked with an architect who also told him that there should be no problem getting a variance because many had been granted in that neighborhood. He noted that he submitted the architectural plans to the City and that a meeting was held. He pulled the papers for a variance that would allow him to add one master bedroom and bathroom. Since the Planning Commission meeting of April 13th, he has had his architect re -draw his plans to scale down the original project. The architect could not do anything except make it 1 -foot lower, so that we are under 10 -feet. The lower level could not go towards Coast Highway, as it would be too noisy. I talked to my neighbors and they all approve these plans, as they are less massive and save views and are much shorter than the alternative. Referencing the staff report, he noted that several variances have been approved on Kings Road. The Balboa Bay Club has also requested and received a variance for heights, including a cupola. This variance alters the view from my home as well as others. Denial of my variance could be viewed as unequal treatment. My building would enhance Kings Road and if I don't build it, unfortunately the result is going to be something very unpleasant, boxy, higher, bigger and more massive and won't do anybody any good. I would appreciate it if I can get this variance approved so that I can be proud of what I can do. Dr. Nicholas Yoruw, 1210 Kings Road stated that he opposes this variance. The applicant's property is on the south side of Kings Road and is on a hill. Looking at those properties, you find that most homeowners have extended multi -level INDEX Item No. 1 V 1237 Denied S City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . May 18, 2000 closer to Pacific Coast Highway down the slope. The applicant could easily do that. I think that what should be done is to extend one of the two levels, he would not need a variance and would not have to worry about the Balboa Bay Club blocking his view. If the applicant gets his way, he will block my view and everyone else's on the north side of the street. Ali Malisoda, Huntington Beach real estate broker spoke as the buying broker for the applicant. He noted that when they found this property, an investigation was done to see if the house could be expanded. It looked like other homeowners had similar or bigger variances. Based on that information, we felt the applicant would be able to get a variance for his expansion plans. I knew how critical it was. This application seems to be for a smaller variance and should be looked at as it is reasonable and enhances the property. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley noted for the record that he had listened to the tape and read the minutes of the previous meeting, as he was not in attendance. Continuing, he stated that every variance that is either approved or denied is done so on a case by case basis. No variance sets precedence, especially on Kings Road. The hillside on Kings road is dramatically different as you go up and down the road. I visited the site to see what the impacts would be and it is difficult to see. I would like to suggest that story poles be erected to see the impact of this addition. Commissioner Ashley asked if this variance was approved and the construction completed, if a new homeowner wanted to make an addition to the front of the house, is there any reason that could be denied? Ms. Clauson answered that if there is nothing in the approvals that would restrict this floor plan, then yes, there would be nothing to restrict a new home owner from coming back and building more onto the property. It does go to the issue that the need for a variance is as the topography requires, and not on the benefit of the design of the project. The code is set up and is what is acceptable in the neighborhood and that is how the zoning has been set for that property as to height, setbacks and is what is allowed to be built. The whole point of a variance is that it is necessary. In this case, it would be necessary because of the topography, not necessary because the real zoning code could create a worse view impact. Commissioner Kiser asked about condition 5, regarding public improvements. Mr. Edmonston answered that this is a standard condition that is placed on all projects normally for a house addition there would not be any improvements unless for instance, the sidewalk out front was severely deteriorated or something of that nature. This condition provides that the applicant could bond for it and proceed with construction. IVID] :1 �b City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . May 18, 2000 Commissioner Ashley stated he is concerned about a "double whammy ". In this instance, I think that a subsequent buyer could add on to the front portion of the house that would bring it up to the existing code standards so that would be a second loss to the people on the north side of Kings Road. If this variance is approved it would allow the applicant to exceed code standards to get an enlarged facility of his choice. Ms. Clauson added that the zoning is set up as being acceptable. That is what the community relies upon and that is the reason why you only have a variance when there is a need for it. Commissioner Kiser noted that it would not have to be a new property owner who would make this improvement, but this owner with a subsequent set of plans could come on the heels of this, as well. Commissioner Tucker noted that it was irrelevant who was going to live in the additional room. it seems that every variance we have is for the sake of somebody's mother. It is not important to us. We have a series of findings that we have to make in order to justify the variance. One of the findings is a weighing of the hardship on the applicant versus impacts on surrounding neighbors. What I had suggested at the !ast meeting was that you come back with a plan that did as much as you could possibly do to reduce the impacts. As I understand the staff report, you basically lowered the house by a foot; you didn't move it closer to Kings Road or any of the other design considerations that were suggested. The topography for this property is difficult. If a variance request comes before us that doesn't involve straight down hill topography the Planning Commission almost always denies. Hearing about all the variances that the Planning Commission granted, this really isn't true. The one suggestion that I had at the last meeting was that you bring your architect with you tonight, did you do that? He was answered, no. Continuing. Commissioner Tucker said that there is no way to ask the architect if there was a way to further minimize the impacts, so I have a lot of concerns about this variance. It should be to achieve the applicant's purpose, but yet to impact the neighbors as little as possible, and I don't have a great deal of comfort that has happened without having the opportunity to probe that with the architect. Commissioner Kiser asked if it was possible to condition the property so that if this variance was granted, further building could not be built towards Kings Road and in the extra 10 and 1/2 feet that we have in width that could be built under the current zoning? Ms. Clauson answered no. If the variance is based upon the design, that is this design is worse than what could be built under the original zoning, then that is not the appropriate basis for the variance. To condition it on not allowing them to build what they are allowed to build in compliance with zoning, there is no mechanism. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . May 18, 2000 INDEX Commissioner Ashley noted that a variance is not necessary for this property. The applicant can go ahead and live within the existing building and zoning regulations and expand his house to have the amount of space he would like to have for this family by building fully on the lot as would be appropriate by adding another level. We would be putting ourselves in some kind of difficulty if we were to approve this variance and at a later date see that somebody could come back and add to the house within the existing code standards. They could have a larger house that would be more deprivational to the interest of the people living on the north side of Kings Road. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to deny Variance No. 1237 for the findings listed in Exhibit B, as well as for the finding stated above. Commissioner Tucker noted that he would be supportive of a variance if the impacts were minimized, I am not inclined to support this variance, but if the applicant wanted to continue this process to go back and do some further re- design. I believe that with a little bit of effort the conditions for a variance could be there, but I don't think that the applicant has tried very hard at this point. Chairperson Selich noted his agreement with comments adding that the Commission gave some strong direction to the applicant last time and it was not complied with and a very half- hearted effort was put forth. ^" Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: McDaniel EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Variance No. 1237 FINDINGS: That the granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: The property owner could design an addition that does not extend over the slope, which could meet the permitted height requirements. The existing structure could be redesigned on the lower levels to r� .y City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . May 18, 2000 provide for the expansion of the living area and not impact the street side elevation of the home and minimize the need for the variance on the street side of the structure. Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography have been able to construct new dwellings, or remodel existing dwellings, within the allowable height limit without the approval of a variance for height or maintain the single story element along the street side. The requested Variance is of a greater magnitude than previously approved by the City on lots with similar topography. Approval of this variance based upon consideration of the design, which to an extent limits the blocking of neighbors' views, is not a valid finding of approval of a variance application. A future addition could be designed in full compliance with the Zoning Code, which would restrict views and thereby eliminate the design features used as the basis for approval of the variance. Approval of the variance request coupled with potential future additions built in compliance with the Zoning Code would be detrimental to Kings Road. Prudential California Realty 3301 East Coast Highway Modification Permit No. 5059 INDEX Item No. 2 M 5059 Review of Mo ation No. 5059, relative to the proposed sign program for a Continued to June multi- tenant buildin 22nd Chairperson Selich noted tlW..he called up this item to the Planning Commission after approval by the Modific Committee. His reasons for the appeal was concern of the erected signs anal4ka installed prior to the Modifications he and the applicant is asking for an exo opinion that what we are trying to do in district. When exceptions are granted, signs on these buildings. the signs had been constructed and The signs are not very high quality p to the Sign Regulations. It is my oron el Mar is upgrade the business then we uld look for higher quality Ms. Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner noted that when this program was brought to the Modifications Committee, discussion was he l at offered suggestions. Changes were proposed resulting from that discus We conditioned the signage so that the committee would have the opport to review the sign design at a later date. Since the committee made these findin the applicant has made several changes as outlined in the staff report. The I aEW°OR> CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �= PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: May 18, 2000 Agenda Item No.: 1 Staff Person: Bob Goldin (949)644 -32019 —Appeal Period: 14 da s REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Navai, applicant) 1201 Kings Road (Continued from the 4/13/00 meeting) PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: ACTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONE: OWNER: Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. Approve, modify or deny: • Variance No. 1237 Parcel 2, PM 51 -7 R -1 Jim Navai, Newport Beach Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" use. The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use within this designation. • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). • Variance procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. /0 Vicinity Map .rt a .p wn � '107 v .at ttY Ma � c '. � $C11O0I - ap l au am a„ r p iv ew aM+ i>. CLIFF DR - Sub'ect COAST HVVY W 9ry `aOaCh4 < :. Balboa Bay Club �sTr"+`,>vs> L `'''` 200 0 200 Feet ^:E:< E`:�3 $1"�'ut3'f�^.3fx'�?S s• .*tt+cz"'' 'a<RY (�"`"�e�.v;;,}..�jK �. i ?,,.: Variance No. 1237 Navai Residence Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and attached garage. To the north: Across King Road are single family detached homes To the east: Are single family detached homes To the south: Commercial properties located on West Coast Highway (car wash, auto dealer) To the west: Single family detached homes variance No. 1237 May 18, 2000 Page 2 Background This item was continued from the April 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to consider revising his plans and addressing the concerns raised at the meeting. This report will focus only on the revisions to the plans as a result of the last meeting. The Planning Commission report from the April 1P meeting is attached as Exhibit "C" that further details the request. The subject site is located along Kings Road in Cliff Haven and zoned R -1. The current single family dwelling was constructed in 1974. The project, as designed, met all applicable R -1 development standards in effect at that time. Since 1974, the City has modified the height limitations in the R -1 zone from 35 feet maximum to 24 feet maximum. Analysis The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of an 852 square foot second story addition to his existing 2,868 square foot single family residence (with an existing 506 square foot garage) of which portions of the addition exceed the permitted height limit of 24 feet. The addition would add a master bedroom, bath and walk -in closet. In addition, the applicant is proposing architectural enhancements to the structure as part of the remodeling efforts. The revised plans are attached for the Planning Commission's review as Exhibit "13". Since the April 1P Planning Commission meeting, staff has met with the applicant on numerous occasions to explain the concerns raised by the Commission and the area residents and suggested various ways that the project could be redesigned to minimize the height encroachment and still accommodate the applicant's needs. It was staff's direction to try to reduce the encroachment as much as possible. To assist the applicant, staff suggested the following options for the applicant and his architect to explore: • Reversing the roof design to have the high point of the roof in front and the low point at the rear, which would result in more massing as viewed from the street, but less when viewed at an oblique angle and would reduce the encroachment over the 24 foot height limitation. • Reconfiguring of the front elevation to create more of a split -level appearance as viewed from the street. This could be accomplished by offsetting and lowering the finished floor of the new addition, but retaining the existing garage's finished floor. It could also be accomplished by creating a single story element on part of the addition on the west side of the lot, rather than the addition as proposed being all two -story elements. This would result in less massing as viewed from the street and a reduced encroachment over a portion of the 24 foot height limitation on the west side of the proposed addition; • Reconfiguring of the floor plan to move the bathroom and closet areas to the west side of the addition, while reducing the depth of the addition and extending the bedroom further to the west side of the lot. This results in a reduction in the encroachment over the slope, but increases the width of the building as viewed from the street; Variance No. 1237 May 18, 2000 Page 3 • Moving the entire addition closer to the street, reducing the front yard area to the minimum setback. This option would reduce the encroachment over the 24 foot height limitation; • Reducing the distance between the roof overhang at the rear and the fascia projection just below the roof overhang, thus reducing the encroachment over the sloped area. Each of these options alone or together would help to reduce the overall encroachment of the addition over the slope. The applicant has now resubmitted plans that are basically the same as those plans previously reviewed by the Commission, except that the overall height has been reduced by one foot, from 12 feet in height to 11 feet, on the downslope side of the upper story. This one foot reduction was accomplished by reducing the plate height of the downslope wall of the addition and lowering the slope of the roof. The applicant preferred the last option listed above as the only means to address the Planning Commission's concerns about the encroachment. This reduction results in the building now encroaching between 1 to 9 feet above the permitted height, rather than between 1 -10 feet as previously reviewed by the Commission on April 13, 2000. The horizontal encroachment is identical to the original proposal as the applicant chose not to reduce the depth of the addition. The square footage, floor plans and elevations are also the same as before. The applicant has also submitted a revised letter of justification attached as Exhibit "E ". His position is that the variance is a better alternative for the neighborhood than building a structure that complies with the City's height requirements. According to him, to construct a structure that meets his needs and still complies with codes would be higher in the front portion of the lot, block more views, and be a bulkier design than the project designed with the variance. In addition, the applicant has provided five letters of support from residents in the area, which are attached as Exhibit "G ". Project Development Characteristics Table (Italics reflect revisions to the plans from the April 13`" meeting) variance No. 1237 ! May I8, 2000 f 3 Page 4 EXISTING PROPOSED Gross Land Area 9,588 sq. ft. 9,588 sq. ft. Buildable Area 6,716 sq. ft. 6,716 sq. ft. Permitted Gross Structural Area 2,868 sq. ft. existing including garage: (2 x Buildable Area: 2,868 sq. ft. 852 sq. ft. proposed addition 13,432 sq. ft.) 506 sq. ft. garage 4,266 sq. ft. total Building Height: 24 foot average roof height Flat roof with portions of the second floor addition that ranges from 24 ft. to 31 ft, s above grade. •A reduction of I foot from previous design. Setbacks for main structure: Front: (Kings Road) 10 ft 10 ft. Sides: 4 ft. 4 ft. Rear: 10 ft. 23 ft. parking provided: 2 enclosed garage spaces 2 enclosed garage spaces (Italics reflect revisions to the plans from the April 13`" meeting) variance No. 1237 ! May I8, 2000 f 3 Page 4 It is staff's position that the applicant has not fully complied with the Commission's direction to reduce the encroachment as much as possible. There were design options offered to the applicant that could further reduce the encroachment over the 24 foot height limitation. However, as indicated in the applicant's most recent letter, he feels he has provided a redesign that does address the Commission's direction by reducing the overall height by one additional foot. It's the applicant's perspective that he has designed the addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible. The applicant has met with his many of his neighbors and -has support from five residents in the area as indicated in the attached letters. Staff believes that the findings to support the variance as redesigned can made based primarily on the unique topography of the applicant's lot. Staff would refer the Commission back to the April 13a' staff report on pages 5 and 6 (attached) that details the required findings and the justification to support the variance. However, there are several design options that can reduce the amount of encroachment above the height limit, potentially eliminating the need for the variance entirely. This fact could lead to a determination that approval of the variance would be granting a special privilege. Conversely, the City has approved similar variance applications in the past where the topography constrains the ability to construct within the 24 -foot height limit, and denial of the variance could be viewed as unequal treatment. The Planning Commission must be able to make all four of the required findings in order to approve the variance. If the Commission's determination is that one or more of the findings cannot be made, then staff would recommend the variance be denied. Recommendation In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report and the April 13th report, staff believes that the findings for approval of the variance can be made for the increased height for the reasons as stated above. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Variance No. 1237, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Commission be unable to make the required findings for approval, findings for denial are attached in Exhibit `B ". Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: BOB GOLDIN Project Planner c� i3. Attachments: A. Resolution of Approval with findings and conditions B. Resolution of Denial with findings C. Planning Commission Report of April 13, 2000 (Previously transmitted) D. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations E. Applicant's Letter of Justification F. Letter of Opposition G. Letters of Support F:IUSERS\PLN\ SHARED \IPLANCOM\2000\5- 18PC\V1237.DOC Variance No. 1237 �� May I8, 2000 Page 5 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Variance No. 1237 Findings: That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Family Residential designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. The special circumstances applicable to the property that the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification are: The unique topography of the site of the lot restricts the ability to comply with the height requirements. The site is additionally constrained by the slope as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a second story addition on this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. The addition is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from Kings Road. 5. The approval of Variance No. 1237 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant for the following reasons: The applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree possible. The proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of height requirements could result in an addition that is substantially higher than currently proposed or too small to be feasible or desirable for the owner. 6. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district for the following reasons: Variance No. 1237 1 i May 18, 2000 Page 6 • The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. • The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography that exists in the area and on this lot. • The City has granted other similar requests in the area to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on lots with similar topography. • Without the sloped condition, the applicant could construct an addition within the required height limit. 7. The granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: • The applicant has designed an addition that is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. • When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit. • Were the project to use the full height available utilizing the City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be higher than the proposed development, provided the depth of the addition were reduced and a more pitched roof was incorporated. • Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, staff does not feel that it will significantly harm the neighborhood. • Other two and three -story elevation residences exist in the area along Kings Road and as viewed from West Coast Highway. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way and that an encroachment agreement be executed for all non - standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Kings Road right - of -way and any easements. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. VaAwcc No. 1237 May 18. 2000 Page 7 6. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 7. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 8. That all work within public rights -of -way and easements be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 10. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1237 I? May 18, 2000 Page 8 EXHIBIT `B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Variance No. 1237 FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: • The property owner could design an addition that does not extend over the slope, which could meet the permitted height requirements. • The existing structure could be redesigned on the lower levels to provide for the expansion of the living area and not impact the street side elevation of the home and minimize the need for the variance on the street side of the structure. • Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography have been able to construct new dwellings, or remodel existing dwellings, within the allowable height limit without the approval of a variance for height or maintain the single story element along the street side. • The requested Variance is of a greater magnitude than previously approved by the City on lots with similar topography. Variance No. 1237 /} May 18, 2000 G� Page 9 05/10/2020 09:07 9496505080 May 09 00 06e56P Rli MalekZadeh may a, 2000 oily Fall 3300 Newport Bled. Newport Beach. Ca. 02658 Re: Vatlance No 1237 Jim Nawfi 1201 Kings Rd. JAMSHEED NAVAI PAGE 01 714 - 960 -4229 F.I. RECEIVED By PLANNING DEP AFTh1EM MH t1A:t' i 0 2uG0 Atli Pty gIg1911U 11112111213141616 In response to the planning commissions concern regarding the above wdanca (V*idnca NO. 1237),1 had several meetings with my Architect. He was *only "to law the alNSllon by a loot. Since from the beginning we Intended to keep the adddan to the possible minimum size, therefor ed this point there were not much more that he could do to dumisize Via pm)act further. Also the topography. and other major restrictions merle it dttcu8 daft any other charges without serious comprnmiss on the function and design. Al of the neighbors that I have contacted agree that I roust explain to the conxriasiarors in derma the anemathe to the proposed plan. The only other ptact{cal design would be to go as close as to the kings Rd. as posside considering the set back, this would give me room to bulb on a fat area vft*L l need of a Yoder". The problem with this design Is that it Is much more Intrusive, blocks more Jews and It Wit reeve to be all the way cross the property over 45 Net long at toast 24 high (possibly 29 but with a pitch reofj sire time k wily 17 Nat Old area, there would not be any apace to consider any oetdeng to epharece the design, to a result it VAll be a big stuccobox. Although I W 8 its* a better Vow Yon Inside of such sui Wre, but from the Kings Rd. It win bean unpleasant b uIlding to look at. This is the reason why WI the neighbors that know about both options, proper the axkdrg dosbgn, since It Is much smWar and better design which erdeanees the nolghbadeoed. At this point 1 should also mention that the city had approved other height variance Nqudets In Kings Rd. up to 20 be(- Most recently 1821 Kings Rd. (under construction) has approval of 8 Nei variance. leis building is much bras than my building and the addition and yet the variance was approved. This would be the moat critical polyd If I am dep4wed of the same consideration that was given to my neighbor. Also b3alboe Bay Gub vies Owen several haigM whence permit. Their new structure Wdidon Is directly In Wolff of my buikWtg and W8 be obstructing pmts my bay Mew and the Maw from Kings M. psmnananW. Thar wrtance Includes a 26 teat height variance for a Capda. Again not VMV me a 9 Nat variance for my femly use **erns unfair. It is aka Important to consider that as per stags report granting the permit is necessary tx preservation and mfr enjoyment of substantial properly rights. And that the grunting of tMs application is consistent with the purposes of the code (Sac,20.91.(MB ) and will rot constitute a great of &pedal pMlage fwanbtant with the limteatlon on other properties In the vicinity and came zoning district, Because Ofsp*cld dreumstancss applloeble to the properly. Including size, shape. topography. location or surroundings, the stdo application of the above code deprive my property of priviages enjoyed by other propxry in the Mcinity and under klandcal zoning closadcWion. The staff report indicates that pest wdance approvals for increased height ware p*mltted due to topographical conattaint of the ptopamas thersttr It could be viewed as not granting of special pdWege, since the Cty has granted Other of rilkm request to ercesd the pamJttad height Ara to sloped corditlors existirg on similar Ids. Fundy comidering all circumstances and trio two po"NO options, It Is quite apePMM ed deign Is by ffi a benef, less intrusive and more apposing ►or the Kings rid. Men the alternative xw Is wen ardfatar than the ones akeady approved for others. -� Respaettdty: Jim J. Naval 1201 Kings Rd. Newport Besch, Co. *,rwerti�.raao .,wvoaew:w.e ro.: r -- /q Vincent P. Roman, PE 810 Kings Road Neuport Beach, California 92663 (949)631 -S75S, (949) 631 -2350 FAX L•- mail. rroinan13 Calionie.com April 13, 2000 Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Vincent Roman. I live at 810 Kings Road, Newport Beach. I oppose the variance for 1201 Kings Road for the following reasons: 1. The fact that the applicant is limited to building to a maximum height of 24' does not deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners. The applicant has the ability to build down the slope as much square footage as is allowable under the current standards. The height restriction may preclude the applicant from building that particular building on the site, but all properties limit building design. 2. The approval of a variance grants this property owner special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. This property is similar to most of the properties on the bluff side of Kings Road, and has the same topographical limitations as those properties. Approval of this variance therefore grants the owner special rights for this property not enjoyed by other bluff -side owners not granted variance. 3. The approval of the variance will affect adversely the public welfare in the neighborhood. Kings Road is a unique neighborhood, and as I am sure you are aware, has been embroiled in major disputes regarding building heights. Building height is a sensitive issue and affects the well being of the residents, even for buildings that meet the requirements of the code. Granting this variance will cause grief to other residents. 4. By granting this variance and other variances on the bluff -side of Kings Road, the planning commission is setting precedent on Kings Road without the benefit of the due process required to develop zoning ordinances. The issue of building heights on Kings Road is a significant issue that needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission aside from the subject of this variance. I have a letter from one of my neighbors, Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu, which presents his views on the problems facing Kings Road and suggests a review of the Oakland city ordinances developed following the devastating fires of a few years ago. Oakland also experienced many of the redevelopment issues facing Kings Road including large homes built on varying topographies, down hill splits and view preservation. n `� This is an issue, which must be addressed as the problems will not "go away" if we ignore it. I would be happy to work with the Planning Commission to develop a workable plan for the area. Sincerely, i i 2WLC4", Vincent P. Roman, PE "' 1 Robert L. Whitney, 1211 Kings Road, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 May 8, 2000 To whom it May Concern Re: Variance #1237 Dear Persons, I am in favor of allowing Mr. Navai's construction permit with the variances he requests. Numerous residences on Kings Road have gotten variances and just recently The Balboa Bay Club got a variance to build beyond the parameters of the code. Why not Mr. Navai? I feel that what he has purposed is far more appealing than what he would have to do if he doesn't get the variance. I have no objection to Mr. Navai being granted this variance. Sincerely, Robert L. Whitney April 25 2000 City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Ca. 92658 Re: Variance No. 1237 1201 Kings Rd. for Mr. Jim Navai We live next door to Mr. Jim Navai (west side) We understand during last several years anyone that has asked for a hieght varinance up to 20 feet has recieved a permit for it. Mr. Nava} should be given the same concideration. Not giving him the permit could result building of a much larger addition that will obstruct even more views. U`L'�'i P - fIzXVV c' / Alan Miller 1510 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 To Whom It May Concern. Re: 1201 Kings Rd. Variance Request Please be aware as a homeowner on Kings Road, I am not opposed to the granting of variance requests as long as those requests are minor. They must not adversely affect the homeowners on the inland side of the street more than if the homeowner was to build within the allowed envelope. It is my understanding that the request by the homeowner at 1201 Kings Road, although outside of the building envelope, will have less of an impact on adjacent owners than if he were to build to the extent of the building envelope. I think he is making a reasonable effort to be a good neighbor and mitigate the concerns of those homes directly affected by his addition. Sincerely, . Alan Miller �- The Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Ca. 92658 Re: Variance No. 1237 1201 Kings Rd. for Jim Navai I live 3 houses from mr. Navai. During the past few years I have been witness to several people requesting height variance, which they all recieved .Mr. Navai's additions seems one of the smaller addition I have seen. It is only fair to let Mr. Navai, build his addition as per his request. Neriya Yamtobian 1101 Kings Rd. Newport Beach Ca. 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NRu,'o-�cT "Ea CH AM MAY 01 2660 PM 71819110111112111213141516 I April 26, 2000 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach Ca 92658 -8915 Re: Variance #1237 1201 Kings Road —Jim Naval In my humble opinion ,granting the above -named variance will have the least impact on the view corridor than building to the codes with a massive second story across the lot. Sind Keith Hostiel 1300 Kings Road Newport Beach Cc: Jim Naval ZG City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 going to be pursued, at some point they will have to come forward with a iLnial recommendation. Chair n Selich recommended that the applicant take a table because it leaves t options open and the Commission has to, they can do a denial without pr dice later. Chairman Selich explained that if the zoning change bogged dow \reactions applicant could come back with a re- design. Mr. Udvare commented would like to do that and asked for a estimate of a time frame. ChaSelich responded that it was hard to say because it depended oh reactions of the property owners of China Cove. It could be foumo s to a year if it gets controversial. Mr. Udvare asked if it is not conial, ho long? Chairman Selich responded approximately 4 months. Mle agre and explained they need to draft the original provisions to ing ordina e and the staff would attempt to have one or more com meetings t xplain the proposals before any hearing notices woulnt out. Commissioner Ashley commented at the Commission consider encouraging people to put garages su - surface. Commissioner Ashley expressed that he did not believe that gar es should not be counted in China Cove against the overall square footage f the house because of the sizes of the lots cnd the fact that they do not wo : cars oarkina at the curb. whai The �cs&rrenr leve'. Chairman Selich stated that since the applicant has ncurred with the tabling of this item and asked if there was a motion to that effect. Commissioner Gifford so moved. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Abstain: None SUBJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road • Variance No. 1237 Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet. Staff had no additional comments. Public hearing opened. Jim Navai, applicant, explained that the present house has only two - 24 INDEX Item No. 4 Continued to May 4, 2000 ?, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . April 13, 2000 bedrooms and bathrooms and he wanted to make the addition to accommodate his mother. Mr. Navai commented that because of the extreme slope, there is no other room to expand. Mr. Navai commented that he checked with his neighbor directly across the street and she had no objections, and his neighbors to the left and right and they also had no objections. Mr. Naval commented that the neighbors behind and aside away from his residence are concerned. Curt Yeager, 1401 Kings Road, commented that he did not want to set a precedence for other houses on a steep slope. Mr. Yeager respectfully requested that the Commission ask the applicant to build within the allowable of the zoning codes. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Yeager his impression of how much of the second story on the street level encroaches outside of the height zone? Mr. Yeager responded that at the back end it is 8 or 9 feet above the height zone. Chairman Selich asked what percentage of the additional structure that is? Mr. Yeager commented that he did not know. Keith Hosfiel of 1300 Kings Road commented that he is asking for fairness of the neighborhood. Vincent Roman of 810 Kings Road opposed the variance and feels if this variance is granted it will set a precedent on Kings Road for building heights without the benefit of due process of the development ordinances.. Mr. Roman gave the Commissioners a letter from Mr. Bruce D'Eliscru of 810 Kings Road representing his views on the problems facing Kings Road. Mr. Roman submitted his comments to the Commission in a letter. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Roman if he lived directly across the street. Mr. Roman responded that he was on the inland side of the street to the east. Dr. Nicholas Yaru of 1210 Kings Road disagrees with the variance and asked the Commission to deny. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Ashley referred to the Project Development Characteristics Table on page 3 of the staff report and noted that the existing square footage at two times the buildable area is 13,432 square feet and what is being proposed is 9,200 square feet less and asked for an explanation since it is an addition to what already exists. Mr. Campbell responded that 13,432 square feet is the total gross buildable area that the lot could support, and the proposed column is the breakdown of the total square footage of what the applicant is proposing to add. Mr. Campbell commented that it demonstrates they are in compliance with the floor area limit requirement. Commissioner Ashley for clarification asked if he had only 2,868 square feet 25 RI-Om. W City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 existing, not 13,432 and that the applicant would like to add another 852 square feet to the property? Mr. Campbell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Ashley asked if the applicant intends to add the square footage to a point where it will be 24 -feet above graded street level? Mr. Campbell responded that, at street level, it would be approximately 19 -feet but as it goes to the south, about mid -point it encroaches into the limitation. Commissioner Ashley asked if the applicant was entitled to 19 -feet? Mr. Campbell responded yes and explained that the proposed addition, above the garage, near the front wall of the house is in compliance but the latter part of the addition, as it progresses away from the street is what exceeds the limitation. Commissioner Ashley asked how visible the extension from the properties across the street? Mr. Campbell responded that the height difference between the front and rear of the residence is nominal. If the addition would be cut off at the back end you could not see an appreciable difference if you were standing directly across the street. If you were looking at it from an angle, it encroaches farther out from the natural terrain that would normally be approved and there would be the triangular piece that would block views. Commissioner Selich commented that if you were down the street, you would have to looking at it from a second story level to have it interfere. Mr. Campbell commented that you could see it from ground level but it would not significantly block the view. Commissioner Gifford referred to the comparison of Findings for Approval and Denial, Exhibit A, item #4, bullet 2 says, "...it makes it difficult to design a second story addition..." Exhibit B, item #2, bullet 2 says, "The existing structure to be redesigned on the lower levels to provide for the expansion of the living area and impact the street side elevation of the home..." Commissioner Gifford asked if they were talking about the difference between a second story meaning above the first story, and the difference between providing an equal amount of floor space in a different configuration? Ms. Temple responded yes. Commissioner Kiser referred to page 4 of the staff report, under the Proposed Building Height, second paragraph, first bullet point, page 5, at the top of the page. the fist bullet point, and asked if they were in conformance of the zoning code. Mr. Campbell responded they were. Commissioner Kiser referred to the second bullet point on page 5 and noted that, at the rear side of the roof, the zoning for this kind of pitched roof there is a 29 -foot maximum height at the peak. Commissioner Kiser asked, as far as the zoning, a variance is 34.5 feet. the proposed versus 29 -feet as zoned and they are talking about 5.5 feet variance on height. Ms. Temple responded, based on considering this as a pitched roof that is correct. However, staff analyzed the actual number of feet above height limit in that particular location. Commissioner Kiser asked regarding the 10 -feet shown in the staff report for the variance is due to the lot dropping off beyond the peak of the roof to the proposed addition? Ms. Temple referred to the depiction posted and noted that on the elevation, the actual peak of the roof is the southerly roof edge 26 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 and not the middle point of the roof. In response to inquiry, Ms. Temple defined peak in terms of the highest point above sea level. Commissioner Tucker asked what the length of the portion of the structure that goes above the height limit from the point in time where it starts crossing to the point it needs a variance to the end of the roof? Ms. Temple responded approximately 16 -feet. Commissioner Tucker noted that the roof is arched in shape but the plate line looks to be quite a bit below the arched area and asked if that is a design feature or is something underneath that area? Ms. Temple referred to page 2 of the plans, which would show the actual height of the roof above the existing residence roof of 12 feet. With normal construction and insulation the inside plate, if it were a clear story, would probably be approximately 11 feet. Commissioner Tucker commented that he wondered if it was necessary because of the issues presented and noted that typically the oblique angles are the ones that have the potential of affecting the views. Commissioner Tucker commented that, compared with other requests they have had for variances where the lots fall off steeply, this one seems to have a little more encroachment. Chairman Selich asked if Commissioner Tucker thought the encroachment could be avoided? Commissioner Tucker responded it is 16 -feel that starts becoming the problem. Chairman Selich asked for clarification, the 16 -feet of encroaching above the plane of the height lirnif? Commissioner Tucker responded yes. Chairman Selich commented that he was looking at what percentage of the area the addition actually encroached into it. Chairman Selich noted that if there were a line on the roof plan, it would show what percentage of the roof was actually encroaching above the height limit. Chairman Selich commented that a variance gives the impression that the entire structure is encroaching when it is a very small part of it. The question is, If the variance is in the order of 5 or 10 percent, such as this is, what negative impact does it have on the adjacent property. Chairman Selich commented that he would weigh that against the fact that he would have to fight the topography of the property and the fact that it starts dropping off. If the way that they measure the height limit follows the contours of the land, he could develop the same space with a different roof configuration on the house, still have the same square footage, and the some visual impact with his neighbors. Chairman Selich asked, by allowing him to encroach beyond that what negative impact is he having on his neighbors and opined that he was having a difficult time seeing much of a negative impact on anybody. Chairman Selich commented that one of the primary reasons for a variance is to deal with topography because our zoning laws are developed for typical flat lots. Commissioner Tucker commented that it looked like there was room, a couple of feet, where the addition starts versus the setback line. By moving 27 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . April 13, 2000 INDEX that addition forward, it could solve some of the concerns. Also by not having the arched roof that would also take care of some of the concerns. Commissioner Tucker suggested there might be a couple of designs that could be done that would get it to the point where it is a small impact. Chairman Selich agreed that the applicant could tilt the arch and there is room at the street frontage and he could go higher at the street frontage and he would be higher at the street, lower in the back and come closer to being in compliance with the height limits. Commissioner Ashley commented that by saying the applicant should build within what the code permits, under those circumstances, he could build the entire width of the front yard, except for the set backs of the side yards, to a height of 24 -feet and create a bigger blockage than what he is proposing to do. Chairman Selich commented if he reversed the entire roof, he would bring it into conformance with the zoning and have the height point out into the street, which would present more of a view blockage than the current design. Commission Kiser commented that he could not support this tonight without exploring alternatives or bringing it within code. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Navai if he would take a continuance and try to work the design out or would he want the Commission to take action on it this evening? Mr. Naval responded that he would like to table it and come back with a design that does not require a variance. Chairman Selich commented that Mr. Navai is willing to design a roof that is completely within the code but will block the view more than the current design. Chairman Selich commented if he re- designs the roof to give him the maximum options, if the Commission denies it without prejudice, if he and his neighbors decide they want to go along with his variance as opposed to his plan that is within code, he could come back before the Commission. Ms. Temple commented if they deny it without prejudice, the applicant could submit the same plan if he chose to. Chairman Selich commented that he would not have a problem approving this variance because this is a situation where, although it is a variance, the project design's end result on the neighbors will be an improved situation over what the applicant could do if he stayed within the zoning code. Allowing the applicant to go back and design a building that is completely within the conformance of the zoning code will have a more detrimental effect on the neighbors than what he is proposing. Commissioner Gifford asked if this variance were granted, could the applicant then go ahead and build the remaining square footage entitlement using that portion of the lot going out to the minimum front set back and up to the 29 -feet and get the benefit of both things to the extent that the ratio is not exceeded? Ms. Temple responded that he could. i1:] City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . April 13, 2000 Chairman Selich asked if the Commission were to grant the variance'if the applicant could they add a condition that would prevent him from filling in the area (as shown on the drawing) in the future Ms. Temple commented that the consensus opinion is no. The only path is to the extent the maintenance of a one -story elevation on a portion of the frontage was part of the consideration for approval of the variance. Ms. Temple expressed that the difficulty that finding and because the maintenance of the one -story elevation is only valuable for the preservation of a private use so there is no public benefit associated with it. Ms. Temple commented that the question could not be answered without further research. Commissioner Tucker stated that there is a variance that he could support but suggested that he applicant could go back and attempt to re- design to lessen the amount of encroachment. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Navai if he would take a continuance and re- design the roof so that not as much encroached into the height area? Mr. Navai responded that he would like to do that and asked if the Commission could set some guideline for him to follow. Commission Kiser commented the maximum variance be closer to 5 -feet instead of 104eet at the back end and cut down to half at the mid -point area at the rear side of the roof on the second addition that was indicated at 34.5 -feet. zoned for 29 -feet. Commissioner Selich remarked cut the encroachment in half. Commissioner Gifford commented that she could not give a guideline but the Chairman's suggestion of reversing the roof would bring the project into conformance. If that works they will not need the Commissioners. Commissioner Tucker commented that he hopes the applicant does try to do some re- design and bring the architect with him next time. Commissioner Tucker expressed that before voting to approve a variance he wants to be satisfied that the applicant has done the best that he can do and still has a functional space to cut back as much as he can on the encroachment. Commissioner Tucker moved to continue until May 4, 2000. Motion passes. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich. Gifford, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Abstain: None 29 INDEX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o" me COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT i PLANNING DEPARTMENT x 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Navai, applicant) 1201 Kings Road April 13, 2000 41X Bob Goldin (949) 644 -32019 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet. ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: • Variance No. 1237 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2, PM 51 -7 ZONE: R -1 OWNER: Jim Navai, Newport Beach Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" use. The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use within this designation. Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). • Variance procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. Vicinity Map 4° ' 200 0 200 Feet a Variance No. 1237 Navai Residence Subiect Property and Surroundin¢ Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and attached garage. To the north: Across King Road are single family detached homes To the east: Are single family detached homes To the south: Commercial properties located on West Coast Highway (car wash, auto dealer) To the west: Single family detached homes Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 2 '' Background The subject site is located along Kings Road in Cliff Haven and zoned R -1. The current single family dwelling was constructed in 1974. The project, as designed, met all applicable R -1 development standards in effect at that time. Since 1974, the City has modified the height limitations in the R -1 zone from 35 feet maximum to 24 feet maximum. Analysis The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of an 852 square foot second story addition to his existing 2,868 square foot single family residence (with an existing 506 square foot garage) of which portions of the addition exceed the permitted height limit of 24 feet. The addition would add a third master bedroom, bath and walk -in closet. In addition, the applicant is proposing architectural enhancements to the structure as part of the remodeling efforts. The proposed plans are attached for the Planning Commission's review. Project Development Characteristics Table Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 _ Page 3 �i) EXISTING PROPOSED Gross Land Area 9,588 sq. ft. 9,588 sq. ft. Buildable Area 6,716 sq. ft. 6,716 sq. ft. Permitted Gross Structural Area including garage: (2 x Buildable 13,432 sq. ft. 4,266 sq. ft. Area) 2,868 sq. ft. existing 852 sq. ft. proposed 506 sq. ft. garage Building Height: 24 foot average roof height Flat roof with portions of the second floor addition that ranges from 24 ft. to 32 ft. above grade Setbacks for main structure: 10 ft. 10 ft. Front: (Kings Road) Sides: 4 ft. 4 ft. Rear: 10 ft. 23 ft. Parking provided: 2 enclosed garage spaces 2 enclosed garage spaces Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 _ Page 3 �i) There is a downslope condition on the south side of Kings Road and an upslope condition on the north side of the road. Because portions of the new second story addition exceed the permitted height limit above natural grade, a variance is required for the construction of the proposed addition at 1201 Kings Road. The City has approved other height variance requests in this area at 607 Kings Road (3 feet in 1981), 1113 Kings Road (10 feet in 1973), 1101 Kings Road, (20 feet in 1989), 1700 Kings Road (1 foot in 1993) and most recently 1821 Kings Road (8 feet in 1997). The variance requests to exceed the height were permitted due to the topography and the steep slope conditions that exist on those properties. Variance to exceed Height Limit A variance to exceed the permitted height limit of 24 feet (average) is required for the proposed addition to the existing residential structure. The need for the variance results from the unusual topography of the building site. In analyzing this request, staff has provided detailed information on the topography and site configuration, as well as a discussion of all areas of the building which exceed the height limit. Topography and Unique Site Features The site is a bluff top residential property with steep slopes on side yard portions of the lot that slope inward to create a gully as it extends to the southerly rear property line. The site is further constrained by a sudden slope drop -off approximately 27 feet from the front property line. The subject property is unique, in that the applicant could construct the second story addition without the need for a variance, if not for the steep downward slope so close to the front property line. The lot is 176.20 ft. in length along the east side property line and 171.96 ft. along the west side of the lot. The area of the lot where the slope falls off abruptly is approximately 145 feet of the length of the lot. Deducting the 145 foot steep slope area measured from the southerly property line and the 10 foot front setback, there is 17 feet of lot depth that is relatively flat. The topographical features limit the area of the lot where the addition to the residential structure can reasonably be sited. Proposed Building Height The plans show that the roofline of the proposed addition varies slightly in height when measured from natural grade due to the sloping topography of the site. As indicated in the above table, the subject property is located in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District which requires a flat roof or top of parapet wall on a flat roof to maintain a height of 24 feet, whereas a pitched or sloping roof requires that the midpoint not exceed 24 feet, provided the high point or pitch of the roof does not exceed 29 feet in height as measured from natural grade directly below. The elevations for the proposed second story addition indicate: • the top of roof at the street side of the lot is 19 feet above natural grade, Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 4 • the mid -point of the new roof on the second story addition is 24 feet above natural grade, • the rear side of the roof on the second story addition at its highest point is 34.5 feet above natural grade. From the mid -point of the roof back to the rear, although approximately 10 feet over the permitted height limit, is where the slope of the lot drops off and places the bulk of the existing dwelling and addition at or below the 24 feet as viewed from Kings Road. The design of the roof provides the lowest section on the street side and the highest portion at the back of the proposed addition. Variance Conclusions Staff has analyzed the elevations from Kings Road and both side elevations and points out that the proposed addition has been designed with a sensitivity to the neighborhood in designing the height of the addition and the visual mass of the dwelling as viewed from Kings Road. The home directly across the street from the subject site is set well back from the street and is a single story structure. There are also single story structures on either side of the subject property. However, there are numerous homes on both sides of Kings Road that are two stories in height. Granting of the variance would allow the applicant similar privileges enjoyed by others in the area. The street side elevation of the addition will have a standing metal seam pitched roof that measures 24 feet at its mid point and would meet the height requirement except for the sloped lot configuration. It should be noted that the peak or ridge of a roof in the R -1 District may be constructed to 29 feet, and in this particular case, would increase the visual bulk of the house at the street level and would most likely further impair the views of the neighbors across Kings Road. Additionally, the other levels of the existing structure do terrace down the slope and follow the natural grade of the lot. The design of the addition is consistent with, and an enhancement to, the existing architecture of the structure. Staff has reviewed previous variance requests of properties in the vicinity of the subject property and with similar topography, and finds that the subject application is of a similar magnitude to those that the Planning Commission has approved in the past. The height variances range from one foot to 20 feet. Previous applications have also included pitched roofs and decks with third level elevations where portions of the deck or roof exceeded the average roof height and, in all but one request, the approvals were granted. Required Findings for Variance Approval Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find as follows: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 5 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. In relation to the above findings, staff believes the special circumstances that apply to this property are the unique topography of the site and the reduced effective lot depth. The site is constrained by the slope as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a second story addition above the existing garage on this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. The City has also approved other similar variance requests to exceed the permitted height on a sloped lot in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. These past variance approvals for increased height were permitted due to the topographical constraint of the properties, therefore it could be viewed as not the granting of special privilege, since the City has granted other similar requests to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on similar lots. The granting of the variance could be determined necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights because without the approval of a variance, the applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without further potentially impacting views from neighboring properties. The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible. Staff feels that, in this particular case, the granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the applicant has designed an addition that is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit. Were the project to use the full height available utilizing the City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be higher than the proposed development, provided the depth of the addition were reduced and a more pitched roof was incorporated. If the depth of the addition were reduced to make it conform to the height restriction, the applicant could design an addition using the full width of the lot which would make the addition larger as viewed from Kings Road. Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, the design minimizes view blockage to largest extent, and staff does not feel that the design is overly obtrusive when viewed from public spaces. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from unique topography that exists in Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 6 the area and on this particular lot. Without the sloped condition, the applicant could construct the addition within the required height limit without a variance. Recommendation In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff believes that the findings for approval of the variance can be made for the increased height for the reasons as stated above. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Variance No. 1237, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Commission desire to deny this request, findings for denial are attached in Exhibit `B ". Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE BOB GOLDIN Planning Director Project Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit `B" Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Applicant's Statement of Support Letter of Opposition F: \USERS\PLNI SHARED \1PLANCOM12000\4- 13PC\V 1237.DOC Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Variance No. 1237 Findings: That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Family Residential designatiorL 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. The special circumstances applicable to the property that the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification are: The unique topography of the site of the lot restricts the ability to comply with the height requirements. The site is additionally constrained by the slope as it drops off from the street which makes it difficult to design a second story addition on this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. The addition is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from Kings Road. 5. The approval of Variance No. 1237 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant for the following reasons: The applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree possible. The proposed project is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of height requirements could result in an addition that is substantially higher than currently proposed or too small to be feasible or desirable for the owner. 6. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district for the following reasons: Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 8 • The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. • The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography that exists in the area and on this lot. • The City has granted other similar requests in the area to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on lots with similar topography. • Without the sloped condition, the applicant could construct an addition within the required height limit. 7. The granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: • The applicant has designed an addition that is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. • When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one that could be constructed in conformance with the height limit. • Were the project to use the full height available utilizing the City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be higher than the proposed development, provided the depth of the addition were reduced and a more pitched roof was incorporated. • Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, staff does not feel that it will significantly harm the neighborhood. • Other two and three -story elevation residences exist in the area along Kings Road and as viewed from West Coast Highway. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way and that an encroachmentagreement be executed for all non - standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Kings Road right - of -way and any easements. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 9 �( 6. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 7. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 8. That all work within public rights -of -way and easements be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 10. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 10 Z EXHIBIT `B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Variance No. 1237 FINDINGS: That the granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservationand enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: • The property owner could design an addition that does not extend over the slope, which could meet the permitted height requirements. • The existing structure could be redesigned on the lower levels to provide for the expansion of the living area and not impact the street side elevation of the home and minimize the need for the variance on the street side of the structure. • Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography have been able to construct new dwellings, or remodel existing dwellings, within the allowable height limit without the approval of a variance for height or maintain the single story element along the street side. • The requested Variance is of a greater magnitude than previously approved by the City on lots with similar topography. Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 2, Page 11 Applicant's Statement of Support The applicant has submitted the following statements in support of the requested variance: What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, building, or use? "Extreme slope of the natural grade and lack of measurable building pads... make this project qualify for a variance..." Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? " ... to allow the owner to add an upper level bedroom over existing single level garage. The new addition would make this home consistent in design and massing with many others on this side of Kings Road. The propose grade being requested by the applicant is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of his property rights." Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? "No neighboring home views will be impacted by this addition and the overall height and street elevation massing will be equal to or less than other recently improved homes on this same side of Kings Road." Variance No. 1237 April 13, 2000 Page 12 j L/ FROP1 : BOB GOLDIN PHONE NO. : 9494937768 Apr. 07 2000 08:199 P2 April 4, 2000 The Planning Department City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach Ca 92658 Re: Variance No. 1237 1201 Kings Road for Jim Navai RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY i)= NFln#0n07 7EA,CH APR 0 6 2000 AM PM 71819110 i1111211,213,41616 1. Since 24 -foot height limit has been set for our neighborhood and since many buildings have been built conforming to this standard set by you, any deviation .from this standard without good reasons will'be unfair to those abiding your_rules. If too many variances are granted, then asking for a variance will become the norm rather than an exception. Then, why having building standards at all ? ?? It is my humble opinion that this variance should not be granted by you. S '' c eC-��' iseith Hos£iel 1300 Kings road Newport Beach L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION. TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION application No. _.... __ (lamp of Appellant ,)r person filing: •31M Z N ��P Phone:c%4q _C?50= S D 7 Addiess: \2o \ VIA65, -- -;P"L7 Ua(o of Planning Commission decision: H lay 19 '10 00 R?garding application of: �l.4RL� ti1G r 01 % for (I )escriplion of application riled with Planning Commission) R& p0 ESTtn1 (a ALI ZIN NO Reasons for Appeal: $ S CA%Q5& OF -ME SI 2 F • SHAPE Aalm t o�n,r -��'+A P � �.M_Di: Pj?, v or (:�'r2 EV ( L- 6 s E fy TC Y> E (3�/ o7Hc2 10.2 r)P a r Q V�- nl.i�r�.17 1 bnn;<riIlcAid-Za1.lnit.,G CcI�.S 4�.C� C�o� h�LD Ceut,�Tt�sTo_.."IHIS .vH�/ �1J_ C�dP�% I/J iC/I n1.CS 2m TNpr (l�Jyc`Tc_p A✓ is� rQyr,.,� HAVE 12c�iE ✓E7� ONG .. f QR OFFICE USE ONLY Date M hb 3 t - Z000 I )ni? Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 14 I tearing Dale. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the Cityl Council within thirty (30) days of th- iiliny of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later dale (NSMC Sail ;n).95.050) n ° T. rc: Appellant • `� S -� Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) , M File APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0408 Appeal Fee: $278 pursuant to Resolution No. 98 -52 adopted on 7 -27 -98 m FD (Ueposil funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) W b tn9� ACA CA z o CA of z ro 8�A 0 o M� oz zo�,� �tnCA0 PO CA 08Z � 0 <�E�� o CA O C O a t zz r On 'n�3C �CA CA , °p �0 b z r� o o� 0 RZ I LI I �a y -01 o M o tz do z� �a z z Wm a m a �oow tT, �y0 z oz� o � P 0 (It 1-1 aq � oo Lj E3� �DjN65 otJ M� V ttLO '-)164J OL 'r1+C k'iu65 mill 34 JF May 30, 2000 City of Newport Beach Mr. Homer L. Bludau City Manager 330 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Variance # 1237 1201 Kings Rd. Dear Mr. Bludau: Per our telephone conversation, I am sending you this letter and some information regarding Variance #1237. In this variance, I am requesting permission for building a structure 9 feet above the permitted height. Before filing for the variance, I asked the planning department to study my plans and advise me if they had had previous experience with such a variance and if there was any reason that my request could be denied. After several days, they informed me that the City had approved similar variances in the past where topography constrains the ability to construct within the 24 feet height limits. Only after this assurance, did I file the application for the variance. I had a hearing on April 13th attended by the commissioners and 5 residents. After expressing concerns, they asked if my architect and I could revise the plans to help reduce the overall encroachment of the addition. Because of dealing with an extreme slope, we could only lower the height from 10 feet to 9 feet over the height limit. On May 18th, I had my (continued) hearing where I tried to explain my problems with revisions due to the severe slope. I submitted 5 letters of support from my neighbors. Their (my neighbors) concern was that it was better for them if I build with the plan requiring the variance, rather than with the alternative plan, which required no variance, but would to be taller, bulkier, and block more views. Finally, I read part of the planning department's report to the commissioners that stated ..." the City has approved similar variance applications in the past and denial could be viewed as unequal treatment ". The commissioners denied my application. 51 After that, I went to the City records to review several of my neighbor's applications for variances that were approved. I read the minutes of their hearings. My research showed that the City, on sPal occasions, gave variance permits for projects up to 20 feet above the permitted height. Most recently on 1821 Kings Road (not completed yet), the owner, a Mr. Hill, applied for and received variance permits on the following: 1). The roof and a portion of the P floor would exceed the height limit from one to 8 feet. 2). A covered balcony would exceed the height limit by 15 feet. 3). A 28 foot high stairwell would exceed the height limit by 4 feet. When reading this file, I saw more than 30 signatures against the approval of these variances. I am only asking for one variance of 9 feet that already has the support of 5 neighbors with only one against. I also noticed the support that Mr. Hill received from the commissioners was positive considering that he was building a house of over 9300 sq. feet. My request is certainly proportional with my addition of only 852 sq. feet to add another bedroom to accommodate my family of three. I have the same problem as Mr. Hill does with 'topography'. I can build a bulkier, taller, and wider building without a variance. However, for the same reasons as Mr. Hill, I need a variance to construct an addition that has the approval of most of my neighbors. Yet the commissioners said yes to him and no to me. Considering the above, I find no justification for the denial of my request and ask that I be treated equally. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerel Jim Navai 1201 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 S--l- f� -174-is 15 T(D "RE/.SagAs Foe- ~2 'C(Pd1ST I- City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1997 C C0MQl�2 -IXi� a APf�C,ICPTIUr�1 > ►�Ni) FILE COPY INDEX SUBJECT: 1821 Kings Road, Residence Rush and Linda Hill, applicants • Variance No. 1215 Request to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit. The specific request includes: the roof and portions of the third floor which will exceep the height limit ranging from 1 foot to 8 feet 1` • a covered balconywhich will exceed the height limit by 15 feet • a 28 foot high stairwell that will exceed the height limit by 4 feed_, Also included in the application is a modification to the Zoning Code to permit: • portions of a wood deck to exceed the permitted 6 foot height limit for walls and fences, which encroaches 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback and 4 feet into the required east side yard setback • a freestanding fireplace that exceeds the permitted 6 foot height limit and encroaches into the required 10 foot rearyard setback Ms. Temple noted that this is a Variance to exceed the basic height limit of 24 feet in the R -1 District for property on Kings Rd. Modification applications are also included regarding certain encroachments of a rear yard deck and a freestanding fireplace that exceeds the permitted 6 foot height limit and encroaches three feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. This Variance is for the height of the building where the portion of the building exceeding the height limit is on the southerly or Coast Highway side of the property. The building itself near Kings Road is in most cases compliant with the height limit. Noting page 4 of the staff report, it was stated that the proposed easterly side yard setback would be 6 feet and the westerly side yard setback would be 9 feet (permitted is 4 feet). Additionally, the parapet wall located on the south /west corner of the dwelling is 31 feet above natural grade to the top instead of 32 feet as indicated in the drawing. The building height variance is from 1 to 7 feet. The chimney on the west side is 28 feet above natural grade. At Commission inquiry. Ms Temple noted the following: • Structures can be constructed in the side and rear yards so long as they do not exceed 6 feet in height. • The applicant could build a structure taller and wider as viewed from Kings Road if he was to build the structure to the maximum allowed. • It would be difficult, but not impossible to build a structure 24 feet in height to the 10 foot rear yard set back, which would have greater impact that the proposed structure. 31 Item No. 7 Variance No. 1215 Approved 3_ 1? 6 Quc-ST L 14 v;L O.aUt oNt -MOO W" 0 Mt �� 3 The applicant has submitted the following statements in support of the requested variance: What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, building, or use? "This is an irregular shaped coastal bluff residential property with steep contouring on portions of the lot and a shallow depth when compared to other Kings Road, bayside properties." Wily is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? "Because of irregular site contouring, it is very difficult to achieve a two story home from Kings Road that projects out towards the bay, becoming a three level structure on the bayside (as many Kings Road bay side homes are constructed), of the size desired and still remain within a rapidly falling height limit paralleling the unique natural grade of the site. The home as submitted, does not require a van c/e n the street or north side. It is the southeast portion of the top floor Variance No. 12 t5 Page 7 ......t,V ... .a v1 LIM wvt crcuients are proposed at 2'/ it. and 28 it. which exceed the allowable midpoint height of 24 feet. Variance Conclusions Staff has analyzed the elevations from Kings Road and both side elevations and points out that the proposed new dwelling has been designed with a sensitivity, to the neighborhood in designing the height of the structure and the visual mass of the dwelling as viewed from Kings Road and the adjoining neighbor's house. The proposed two stories at the street side have a roof with a parapet wall that measures 24 ft. to the top of the parapet, with the flat roof behind the parapet measuring 21 to 22 ft. which conforms to the height limit requirement. It should be noted that the peak or ridge of roof in the R -I District may be constructed to 29 feet, and in this particular case, would increase the visual bulk of the house at the street level and wQttld- mostlikeLy further impair the views to the bay of the neighbors across Kings Road. TRJ c t,Jl W Additionally, the basement level and upper two floors are situated further back from the rear property line which provides a 20 foot rear yard setback which is more than the required 10 foot setback. The benefit of this location is that the house will be able to provide a larger view corridor across the property for the adjacent neighbor and for the residents who enjoy the view from the public park. Not only will the adjacent neighbor benefit from the increased setback, but those residents that live on the inland side of Kings Road and have a view out across the park, will still be able to enjoy the views to the bay. Staff has reviewed previous Variance requests of properties in the vicinity of the subject property and with similar topography, and finds that the subject application is of a greater magnitude than that which has been approved by the Planning Commission in the past. Previous applications have included pitched roofs and decks with third level elevations where portions of the deck or roof exceeded the_.avet`2ge' roof height by-I to a feef and,— ilrafl -h tone request, the approvals were grante� %M�( CP.yG 15 e.YAcTt_y fN� SAM�� Variance No. 121 i Page 6 5q 1821 Kings Road Single Family Residence Project From Kings Road, a two story SFR on an irregular sloping lot with a full day - lighting basement below the main entry level thus creating a three story facade on the Pacific Coast Highway ( "PCH ") side. Goal In context with existing residential properties on Kings Road, the applicant wishes to create a 5 bedroom SFR that takes maximum advantage of harbor and ocean views while al o minimizing the impact on adjacent public and private views. SHME WiN ME gam' j pM RZ QuzSTIr16 onz i3 p ROOM iiDtxTlpoj Unique Circumstances EXISTIM6 oelr:. The application of conventional height limits and set backs are not consistent with the goal of maximizing public and adjoining property views. The majority of city R -1 lots are not irregular, uneven sloping, previously lowered coastal bluff pads. The fact that this subject site is, creates a hardship on the site development. The east side of the lot falls off on an extremely steep slope while the total lot has been previously graded down considerably below natural grade. Old City drawings establish natural grade of this site to be at the level of adjoining property on either side. To the west is a recently remolded and expanded SFR. To the east is the City's Kings Road Park. 9300 Proposed Solution The applicant has designed a residence with a site pla common the area, establishing a two story frontage on Kings Road and three s from PCH. The house is not out of scale with the neighborhood. The design has increased the required rear yard (PCH side) set back which increases the view corridors across the subject site for both the park and adjoining residence. In order to achieve the increased rear yard setback, and not have existing height restrictions chop up the floor plan and exterior design, the applicant desires permission to exceed the 24/29 height limit for the PCH side of the house.: There are also architectural elements /design features that exceed the 24/29 limit. It is important to note this request does not restrict any public or private views from Kings Road beyond what would be achieved if no variance was sought. The granting of this variance will, in fact, increase public and private views of the harbor and ocean from both the west and east sides of the property. S p.ME Additional Requests The applicant wishes to extend a deck into the rear (PCH) and east side set backs to the property line. As the adjoining property is either inaccessible park land or is nearly vertical in form, narrow, and thus un- buildable, there is no crowding issue created by continuing the deck into the set backs. There is also a request by the applicant for a free standing fire place to be located in the rear yard, yet to be sited, and for a spa, built into the ground, that encroaches into the west side set back in the general area as noted on sheet 1 of the submitted plans. MqC" MOEL -TrdNQ MI IZE©UE.S T ? %� —co "Mc- Z J that requires this special consideration due to the rapidly falling and irregular height limit tied to the steep natural grade." "Due to the combination of the shallow depth of the site and steep contouring on the east side, the area for exterior, usable open space is very limited. The south side of the property can be expanded to a much more usable level on the easterly one -half of the lot, with the use of decking and a covered balcony. Without the granting of partial height and setback variances, the usable /buildable area of the property is reduced below the related land value of this site and comparable locations along Kings Road." S tM !! A2 To K J Lo-T. "The request for height and setback. variances are often part of a development submittal package for the Kings Road and Cliff Drive area of Newport Beach. The applicant is not aware of any part of this variance request that would set new precedent in the area or constitute a granting that had not been provided to other land owners in the vicinity" S A M Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? `By allowing this height variance, the basement level and upper two floors are allowed to be pulled in further from the rear property line. A rear setback of more than 20 feet can be achieved instead of the minimum requirement of 10 feet and still achieve the desired size home. This increase in setback provides for a larger view path from the neighbors home to the west across the property looking east. The same is true for those residents east of the site, on the inland side of Kings Road that look out across the public park and, in part, across the subject property." "Going up, allows for a more consolidated footprint on the site. This means more retained water views by both the public (from the Park) and nearby private residents" "Requested setback encroachments are not detrimental to adjacent property uses as the natural terrain does not allow adjacent development in the areas of the desired encroachment. Required Findings for Variance Aonroval Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find as follows: 1. 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, buildings and/or uses in the same district; S &i--7 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; and S. M 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare, of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and S ABM £, Variance No. 1215 <- C Page 8 J will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. S Aw1Z. . In relation to the above findings, staff is of the opinion that the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property are the unique topography of the site and the shorter depth on one side of the lot. The site is additionally constrained by the slope in two directions which makes it difficult to design a home on this lot and remain within the permitted height limit. The dwelling does not exceed the height limit from the street side of the property with the exception of the stairwell and is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street. S -9M E The granting of the variance could be determined necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights because without the approval of a variance, the applicant is unable to design a house comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without impacting views from neighboring properties. The applicant has designed a house that is situated around the drop -off area of the slope in order to work within the constraints of the lot. Staff feels that, in this particular case, that the granting of the application will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the applicant has designed a dwelling that is located in approximately the same location as the existing house on the property in order to preserve public views from the adjacent City Park on Kings Road. The site development has included an increased rear yard setback on the ocean side in order to increase the view corridor across the subject site from both the park and the view to the bay of the adjoining westerly neighbor. Additionally, when viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one which could be constructed in conformance with the height limit. In fact, were the project to use the full height available utilizing the City's roof averaging provisions, the Kings Road elevation could be higher \ than the proposed development. S AgfE j Do No-r !-+AvL PusL10 vt6LJfP_OSUM J 1 The covered balcony, while not living area, does contribute to the overall visual bulk of the building, as viewed from West Coast Highway and the surrounding neighborhood. However, staff acknowledges that the balcony is not a serious detriment because it cannot be viewed from the street and is located over the lowest area on the lot. i, oa w d k I x t v L -nw 5 2 r g a T s t. The proposed deck encroachment will allow the applicant to further utilize the rear yard of the property, while continuing to maintain public views to the bay. Staff feels that the deck encroachment is a reasonable request due to the nature of the steep slope in this location while preserving the of view with open deck railings. Sec THE wd-ra At3ov£ , As the plans for the subject application did not include specifications for the proposed fireplace staff has included a condition for the location so as not to impair views to the bay. 5 cg aqa of Recommendation In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff is of the opinion that the findings for approval of the variance can be made for the increased height and encroachments for the reasons as stated above. 6o AS M 10 Z_ , Variance No. 1215 J j Page 9 r.: Exceotional circumstances: This is an irregular, shaped coastal bluff residential property with steep contouring on portions of the lot and a shallow depth when compared to other Kings Road, bay side properties. Also unique to this property is a city public park contingent to the full east property line and an un- buildable, nearly vertical finger of commercially zoned land between the south boundary and the Pacific Coast Highway, directly above "Pelican Wall ". To the west is a SFR that was greatly expanded and pushed forward on its site during its last remodeling. Preservation of property riohts: Because of irregular site contouring, it is very difficult to achieve a two story home from Kings Road that projects out towards the bay, becoming a three level structure on the bay side (as many Kings Road bay side homes are constructed), of the size desired and still remain within a rapidly falling height limit paralleling the unique natural grade of the site. The home as submitted, does not require a variance on the road or north sid a south portion of the top floor that requires this special consideration a 'he pidly falling and irregular height lima lied to the steep natural grad $ a rte Due to the combination of the shallo of the site and steep contouring on the east side, the area for exterior, usable open space is very limited. The south side of the property can be expanded to a much more usable level on the easterly one half of the lot , with the use of decking. Without the granting of partial height an k variances, the usable /buildable area of the property is reduced belo e r fed land value of this site and comparable locations along Kings Ro . SA-M Consistency with the Zoning Code and imritedidte vicinity The request for height and set back variances are often part of a development submittal package for the Kings Road and Cliff Drive area of Newport Beach. The applicant is not aware t of this variance request that would set new precedent in the area or Lute a nting that had not been provided to other land owners in the vicinity gyp. M Why this r is not rim n h n i h rh !) i�ME M6' By allowing this height variance, the basement level a upper two floors are allowed to be pulled in further from the rear property line. A s back of more than 20 feet can be achieved instead of the minimum requirement of TO nd ' t achieve the desired size home. This increase in setback provides for a larger view path from the neighbors home to the west across the property looking east. The same is true for those residents east of the site, on the inland side of Kings Road that look out across the public park and, in part across the subject property. Going up, allows for a more consolidated footprint on the site. This means more retained water views by both the public (from the park) and nearby private residents. Requested setback encroachments are not detrimental to adjacent property uses as the natural terrain does not allow adjacent development in the areas of the desired encroachment. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1997 approximately the same location as the existing house on the property in order to preserve public views from the adjacent City Park on Kings Road. • The site development has included an increased rear yard setback on the ocean side in order to increase the view corridor across the subject site from both the park and the view to the bay of the adjoining westerly neighbor. When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one which could be constructed in conformancewith the height limit. • Other three -story elevation residences exist in the area along Kings Road and as viewed from West Coast Highway. The proposed covered balcony is located farther down the slope of the property as compared to neighboring dwellings and will not abruptly change the visual vertical scale of the building as viewed from Coast Highway. The proposed deck encroachment will allow the applicant to further utilize the rear yard of the property, but will continue to maintain the public and private views to the bay. • The proposed fireplace will be located a minimum of 9 feet back from the rear property line and will be subject to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way and 37 INDEX N/A t Two 0 0TWKV6 lk1'i P20(jLem So 1 lwL. SNOvu-�az Ed5 /r2 TD I�PP2o V G _ NrA. SEE 7-Nr NO"riS b- 13OJL. g/A, ' 4e r- THE #*t3OV E, 5 City of Newport Beach _ Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1997 great expense Kerry Smith, 1831 Kings Road (to west) - asked about story stakes Carol Dru, 420 Kings Road - wants to preserve the natural beauty of the neighborhood and the park Luke Dru, 420 Kings Road - once a precedent is set, courts overrule Planning Commission and City Council policies; property values are based on view Mr. Hernandez, 1700 Kings Road - built his home recently according to height limits, why can't the Hills do the some and conform with height limits. Speakers in support of the application: Michelle Quinn, (no address given) - this is a private lot and this will not hinder the view from the park Tom Lally, 108 Kings Place - this proposed structure is neighborhood friendly and will increase the value of homes on the street Public Commentwas closed. Ms. Clauson responded to some of the legal issues brought up during the testimony: • During Commission review of Use Permits or Variances, protection of private views are not addressed. • Testimony with regard to private views are considered a factor in the general overall determination but protection of private views do not come into play. • Impact on public views is always considered from a legal point of view. • Regarding precedence, a Variance has specific findings that are different from other types of permits that Commission issues. These findings have to do with something unusual either topographical or setbacks. • Each property has to be evaluated on its own as they have different topographical issues. My LoT rS VE(ZY SiM(Lgf- 7 Concluding, Ms. Clauson stated that the focus needs to be on what is it about this property that needs an increase in the height. It is very difficult for a Variance to set a precedent for another Variance as each property needs to be looked at individually in each instance. Ms. Temple then addressed other questions resulting during testimony: number of items on notice - notices are sent with an attempt to provide information beyond that required under state noticing requirements, the actual wording on the roof and portions of the buildings did not include specifics on the balcony, however, the 34 INDEX MIA 615 SAMc. SIMILO(L (.01 SAMr 0 City, of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1997 Public Comment was opened. Rush Hill, applicant, 1211 Cliff. Drive - referencing a three dimensional model pointed out the differences between the proposed setback limits to the allowed setback limits. The purpose is to achieve as much of a back yard as possible for the functional and sound aspects of the buffer from the noise generated from Coast Highway. By compressing the design in to the center of the property he was able to do this without maximizing the envelope on the Kings Road side. (referencing a hand held exhibit, it was demonstrated what could be build in compliance with the Code and what is proposed). He concluded stating that he has read, understands and agrees to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report and asked that this Variance be approved pointing out the resulting submitted design is much less obtrusive that what could be done without the Variance. Chairperson Kranzley asked that speakers come to the front and stated that any questions asked of staff during public testimony would be answered at the end of the testimony. Phil Petty, 1720 Kings Road spoke in opposition to this application for the following reasons: • referenced letterwritten by his wife • this is a variance of 33 1/3% (going from 24 to 32 feet) • no other height variances on cliff side of Kings Road have been granted • opposes the findings and conditions stated in the report • public notice he received contains no reference to a covered balcony that exceeds the height limit by 15 feet • public notice he received was addressed to his 91 year old father in law Harold Street, 1710 Kings Road spoke in opposition to this application for the following reasons, and stated that he has not looked at the plans prior to this evening. • private views were protected • received copy of regulations regarding no variations in this area • reasons for these rules relative to height and view corridors • if an exception of this magnitude is granted, many, more will come forward Chairperson Kranzley stated that a larger building could be built on this lot that would have a greater impact on views and that the City of Newport Beach does not protect private views. S p to a Wt rH tA.t INDEX 32 (9/ City of Newport Bea4h Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1997 Commissioner Ridgeway pointed out that height limitations on houses on Kings Road on the lower side can build a two story height within the 24 -29 foot height from natural grade limitation. Commissioner Adams stated that each individual application is looked at on its own merits by the Commission. He asked Mr. Street if that portion of the structure that exceeds the height limit would obstruct his view to which he answered. yes. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Street to reference the model and show what portion of the proposed structure he believes impacts his view, which he did. She stated that the Commission has no ability to deny someone from building within their full envelope, which in this case, would extend the bias out a considerable additional amount from the oblique view. In terms of the height, that portion of the building will be higher than the height limit and is limited to the front portion of the residence along the back side. Concluding, she added that the three expressed concerns of oblique view, height and precedence, have been looked at on an individual basis. Every application is considered based on the uniqueness of that property, that proposed design and those impacts. &j bk At this point during the testimony, the hand held exhibit was referenced. Shown with this exhibit was the proposed and existing view disruption from the various view directions of concerns stated. At Commission request, Ms. Temple cited the following variances on the coast side on Kings Road: 1. V1086,607 Kings Road approved July, 1981 2. VI 150, 1 101 Kings Road approved February, 1989 3. 2209 Cliff Drive approved December, 1996 4. 1700 Kings Road approved. 1993 Frank Izendraff, 104 Kings Place asked staff about the height down to grade. This is setting a precedent for giant castles to be built along Kings. His small lot of 22,000 square feet of land, if it is two times buildable, it could possibly take a 30,000 square foot house. Could he build something that high in the back? Commissioner Adams stated that the applicants would be allowed to build a 12 ;580 square foot home here. He is also allowed to build a bulkier house that has been described earlier. I Cp0 nO 'Y11 E S An The following additional people spoke in opposition for similar reasons as previously stated. Bill McCuller, 1410 Kings Road - view of sunset is impaired from the park that sits next door, other homeowner has recently built to height limits at 33 INDEX .k -me S%ME wii14Msj C�56 T NoNLCWAG Tp M•I'sV9k -RQz wiTH ME. 6 OF 46- 1151 V, 0167 'So CPDI&T M E in"'D City of Newport Beach Planning commission Minutes November 6, 1997 INDEX agenda does include this information person named on notice - Planning Department relies solely on the latest equalized rolls of the county tax assessor. height of the building above grade - at the mid point of the structure on the coast highway side the maximum is between 1 and 7 feet above natural grade and the balconies beyond the structure itself range from 8 to 15 feet above natural grade Commissioner Fuller stated looking at this proposal there are trade offs and being sensitive to value. What is proposed and what could be built, the relief in the variance does not seem - to - -be— that — substantial. He supports this issue as it is well one ved and is considerably better than it could have been. 5 is e- XAC_TL-f MY. CASE ANO ARGU M Commissioner Ridgeway, supporting the application, stated that: • variances are based upon extraordinary conditions • variance is taken at the natural grade point • from Kings Road this proposed building is under the 24 foot height limit • house is very pretty and is as big is it possibly could be which is wittCnn l-y 115 NOT R l6 9 u i- C1? their right no precedent is being set 7 u*iuES IOzI- �CrGc.� Si"rUATio Q S Commissioner Selich supports the application due to the design of the house and placement on the lot. The purpose of a variance is to t into consideration the inequities in property by the size and sha AS i iNL 1-1>. j z W -ft I Ids CCommissioner Gifford, supporting the application, stated that the ' we from the public park is protected with the proposed design �o D uiM S w1 ni Pug u Commissioner Adams supports the application for reasons mentioned above. This is a good design for this location. Bringing up the possibility o S o A"5 r",/ P L S If_ story poles, after discussion by Commission, were not required. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to approve Variance No. 1215 with the conditions and findings in Exhibit A. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams, Ashley Noes: none Abstain: none Findings: That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Family Reside ntialdesignation. i SAM G- 35 lDJ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1997 INDEX 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction)... S C 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since conditions have been included in regards to development adjacent to the sewer easement. S P, M b 4. That the following exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, building and /or uses in the same District: S p M c' • The topography of the lot inhibits the property owner from designing a dwelling of comparable size to other homes in S AM E the area due to the fact that the property slopes in two directions, southerly away from Kings Road, and easterly downward across the property. • That the lot is constrained by a shorter depth on one side of the lot and a smaller width at the street, thereby restricting the siting options for the residential structure. 5. That the approval of Variance No. 1215 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of th applicant for the following reason: S /�Ml� wrrA V-4 133 % IN 6✓'iP -1 wAy • The proposed project is generally comparable to the size I if and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding M/ v ARlroNGt I NA c neighborhood and strict application of height $NbtLVZ, AWb Moe£ t� requirements could result in a dwelling that is substantiall smaller than otherwise permitted by the Zoning Code. N`�n of= a a2cEAN L, 6. That the granting of a variance to allow a portion of the third floor roof, covered balcony and stairwell to exceed the permitted height limit, and the modification for the deck and fireplace, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood because: S f> /ri% W I'rK Mlue- The applicant has designed a dwelling that is located in 36 C J �l Parking 13NI ---X: � � >0% `5 / C L 0 6 The parking for the Balboa Bay Club redevelopment was studied in the traffic analysis contained in the project's EIR. First, the existing parking demand for the facility was established through field counts on -site and on Coast Highway during peak utilization periods at 384 spaces. This parking demand includes employees currently parking on Coast Highway. Then the parking requirement of the additional facilities was estimated. The study indicated that the primary increase in parking demand would be attributable to the increase in hotel rooms and meeting space, since the actual membership of the club is not to be increased as a result of the project. These rates were %2 space for each additional hotel room, and l space for each 80 sq. ft of meeting space. Using these ratios, the increased parking need for the new project from the current parking demand is 11 l spaces (15 for hotel rooms, and 96 for meeting space). This results in an overall parking demand of 495 spaces. Since the proposal is to provide 498 on -site parking spaces, staff is of the opinion that sufficient parking for the use (including all employees) will be provided on site. Access and On -site Circulation The proposed on -site circulation has been reviewed by the Public Works Department. While the general circulation remains very similar to the existing patterns, some modifications do occur as'a result of the construction of the parking structure. Two changes to the proposed access to the property have been requested by the Public Works Department, and have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. These are that the easterly drive be redesigned to provide right turns in and out only, in conformance with the original conditions of approval, and that the main gate be modified to provide two lanes in and two lanes out, with a minimum of 24 feet required for each direction. With the implementation of these changes, staff is satisfied with the access and circulation. Architectural Features (This portion of the analysis is relevant only if the Planning Commission includes the architectural feature provisions in the PC Text Amendment.) The plans for the project show architectural features in excess of the 35 foot height limit. The main .hotel .building has three features which exceed the height limit. There is an open cupola on the southwest comer of the building which is 16 feet by 16 feet (256 sq. ft. footprint), 22 feet over the height limit; a small roof variation at the approximate mid point of the Bay front elevation 2 feet over the height limit; and a series of balusters and roof edge elements on the Bay front elevation exceeding the height limit by 1 foot, with spaced corbels an additional l foot over height. Additionally, there is one "tower" element on the northeast comer _ _of the athletic facility with the same dimensions and footprint as-the cupola, whichezceeds the height limit by.6leee- t.- TfiiSeteme is solid, with no openings. Z F I LT O v6Q -NE 14 E I G14 T L twP$ D 63 L O C K I N f It (JS 01= �/a ANO NO PRfc C�Ga I VSE Fc� 1) W._. PC Amcndmrnt No. 886 Use Permit No. 3524 (A) July 8, 1999 Page 6 iG Dear Mrs. Glover. My Name is Jim J. Navai. 1 live in your district on: 1201 Kings Rd. Newport Beach. My home is 2 bedroom , 2 bath and since my mother no longer can live by herself she has to come to live with me, so 1 need to add a room. Before filling for an application for a height variance, 1 asked the Planning department to study my plans and advise me if they had had previous experience with such a variance and if there were any reason that my request could be denied. After several days the Planning department informed me that the City had approved similar variances in the past where the topography constrains the ability to construct within the 24 feet height limits. (The City has approved variances up to 20 feet over the 24 feet limit in Kings Rd. including most recently 1821 Kings Rd. Mr. Hill's residence which his lot is similar to my lot). Only after this assurance did 1 file the application for the variance. 1 had a hearing on April 13th. At that hearing the Chair person and the staff were supporting the plan, however other members requested to see if the Architect could revised the plans to help reduce the overall encroachment of the addition. Because of dealing with extreme slop, he could only lower the height from 10 feet to 9 feet over the height limit. On may 18th I had my (continued) hearing. 1 submitted 5 letter of support from my neighbors. My neighbors concern was that it was better for them if 1 build the plan requiring the variance, rather than with the alternative plan, which required no variance, but would be taller, bulkier, and block more views. 1 also read the planning department's staff report that stated. "The City has approved similar variance applications in the past and denial of this application could be viewed as unequal treatment" Yet the commissioners denied my application. At this point I was advise to talk to the City Manager for his advise in which he did ask me to talk to someone like Mr. Jerry King to see if he can represent me to an appeal to the City Council. Mr. kings told me since the project is small it Is better that 1 contact the Council members myself and show them the project in person to each Council members and most important to you first since you are In my district and without your support there is not much can be done. 1 did call you in several occasions but I have not been able to talk to you. So I am writing this email hoping to hear from you and to be able to show you the project in person. My hearing day is on the July 25th. 1 would appreciate if 1 can talk and show you the project to you In person. My telephone # Is (949) 650 -5077 my Fax Is (949) 650 -5080 Respectfully Jim J. Naval (0 �, w.meW".my0s.2W arolu OmWw PLW o npc 1 07/24/2020 12:52 9496505080 July 24 2000 City of Newport Beach City Council 330 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach CO. 82688 Re: Variance 0 1237 1201 kings Rd. JAMSHEED NAVAI PAGE 01 '00 JUL 24 P12:59 OFFICE €P T,'iE CITY CLERK( CIT; fF a WPORTBEACH "RECEIVED A R AGENDA PRINTElY Per my telephone conversation with commissioner Selk:h , I Would Ilke to request from the City Council to please refer my appeal back to the Planing Commission for a rehearing. Respectfully Jim Naval 1201 Kings rd, Newport Beach Co. 8266 07/25/00 TUE 14:50 FAX 949 622 1951 OPUS WEST "RECEIV D AFTER A END PRINTED:" l - na5 �O r t June 27, 2000 '00 JUL 25 P3 :21 The Honorable Mayor and OFFICE C]I 'Mi7 Of I Y CLERK Members of the City Council CITY "'f' i WPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach., California Re: Variance Request No, 1237; 1201 Kings Road Dear Sirs and Madams: ' Iris letter is written to express our strong opposition to the variance requested for 1201 Kings Road. Variances from the height limitation on our street affect property values of all of the neighbors and should not normally be given. In the instant case, the granting of a height variance will adversely affect the view of neighbors across the street and will contribute dangerous precedent to established property expectations of property owners up and down the street. The subject property is a two story home constructed on a lot which mostly lies below the elevation of Kings Road The property owner can construct a substantial home of almost any size on the lot with no need for a variance. Many other property owners on the street, including the undersigned, have constructed substantial new homes or additions, without requesting a variance from the applicable height limitations. While the property owner may be able to construct some improvements inside the height limits which would also have adverse view impacts, this does not justify a variance for the specific design requested by the property owner. All property owners on Kings Road and elsewhere in the City have the right to expect that adjacent land uses will develop within the existing zoning framework and that only extreme hardship will justify variances which adversely affect the views of neighbors. No such circumstances exist here. This property has been recently purchased by the current owner with full knowledge of the existing zoning restrictions. We respectfully ask the City Council to affirm the denial of the variance by dae Planning Commission. Very truly yours, lU 07/25/00 TUE 14:52 FAX 949 622 1951 uPUS wEsa, 10002 July 25, 2000 Via facsimile: 644 -3039 John E. Noyes Garold Adams Tod Ridgeway Jan Debay Paul A. Marshall 1420 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Council Member Council Member City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Variance 1237 — 1201 Kings Road Norma Glover Dennis O'Neil Tom Thomson Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Council Member Council Member Council Member This letter is in response to the appeal of planning commission denial of the above request for variance. The cliff side residences have historically maintained the code requirements and therefore most have terraced down the slope. I suggest that almost every owner purchased its property with the ability to research both the physical and code constraints. The slope condition has existed and is not a new circumstance. There have been over 100 homes built on the cliff side without a variance and presumably each had a clear understanding of both the benefits and issues with hillside residences. I am against the issuance of variances that result in a deterioration of view and value of its neighbors. I appreciate your difficult job; however, there have been a few previously approved variances that appear now not to have been a good decision. A variance for current convenience in light of historical circumstances should not be approved. This request for variance is not warranted, especially in that it encourages a two story street elevation that will clearly impact the view of neighbors. Without the variance the result will most likely be a two story terracing down the hill as the home is currently. 3 07/25/00 TUE 14:53 PAX 949 622 1951 OPUS WEST 10003 , Honorable Mayor And City Council July 25, 2000 Page 2 If you would like to discuss this matter further or have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at my office 949 - 622 -1950. Thank you for your consideration. Si z rely, Paul A. Marshall 9420 Kings Road