HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Navai Residence - 1201 Kings Road4t�E��RJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 9, 2001
c Im PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 19
u _ 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949)644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: None
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Navai, applicant)
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 10 feet.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Hold a public hearing and Uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission to Approve Variance No. 1237.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to deny the project or modify the
project.
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2, PM 51 -7
ZONE: R -1
OWNER: Jim Navai, Newport Beach
Introduction
On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 1237 which permitted
a proposed addition to a single family residence located at 1201 Kings Road to exceed the
maximum allowable building height (Exhibit No. 1). Councilmember Glover requested that this
project be brought before the City Council for review.
Background
A previous version of the project was denied by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2000. The
applicant appealed the denial to the City Council, and due to the fact that the applicant wanted to
redesign his proposal to address design concerns, the City Council referred the project back to the
Planning Commission for further review.
The applicant met with several members of the Planning Commission during the summer and fall
of 2000, and based upon their suggestions, the applicant developed a new proposal. This redesigned
addition lowered the amount of the original encroachment above the height limit by reversing the
slope of the roof, more closely mimicking the site topography.
The proposed addition roughly occupies the eastern half of the property above the existing
garage. The 952 square foot, second story addition is comprised of a new master bedroom, bath,
closet and stairway. Approximately half of the addition (the portion closest to Kings Road) is
below the 24 -foot height limit and the bayward remainder exceeds the height limit up to
approximately 10 feet.
The applicant agreed to a condition of approval on the project that prohibited future additions to the
property unless the subject addition were removed with future review by the Planning Commission.
This restriction as well as the revisions to the design of the project led the Planning Commission to
conclude that project approval was appropriate as the project site is severely limited due to the
steeply sloping topography. In making this decision, the Planning Commission recognized that the
applicant could build a wider addition that could meet the height limit and block views to a greater
extent or he could build below the existing house creating negative aesthetic effects from below and
impact the coastal bluff to a greater degree. The Commission believed that project approval as
conditioned will prevent the potential negative issues associated with other designs. A full
discussion of the project and staff's analysis is contained in the attached Planning Commission
Staff Report (Exhibit No. 2). As noted previously, staff recommends that the City Council uphold
the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Variance No. 1237.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE James Campbell
Planning Director Sen r Planner
la /
Exhibits
Excerpt of draft minutes from the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 12, 2000
\\MIS_l\SYS\ USERS\ PLN\SHARED \1CITYCNL\2001 \0109\V1237 ccrp[ 1-09Al.dm
Variance No. 1237
January 9, 2001
Page 2
Cty,kf Newport Beach
PlannUfftoCornimission Minutes
Newport Beach Mu al Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no
more than depicted b_._ for the specified time periods unless the
ambient noise level is higher.
Between the hour?%L_ Between the hours of
interior QXIBIlo
Onlfimb exterior
Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA
40 dB 50 dBA
Residential Property located
within 100 feet of a commercial
Property: 45dBA 60 dBA
45dBA 50 dBA
Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60 dBA
45dBA 50 dBA
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.
Chairperson Selich stated that this Variance application had been previously
heard by the Planning Commission and was denied. It had been appealed to
the City Council who referred it back to the Planning Commission to try and
work with the applicant to come up with a different design solution for the
project. Commissioner Gifford and myself worked with the applicant on this
project and met with him a number of times. One of the observations we
made was that there was an area on the property down below that was
buildable, but it did have some restrictions on it in terms of noise from the
highway and topographical constraints. However, we suggested to the
applicant that if he would modify the roofline on his project as suggested by
the Planning Commission and if he would agree to a restriction that he would
not do any other additions to the property that it may be appropriate to
approve a variance on the property. The applicant indicated this was
acceptable to him, as he only wanted the additional bedroom suite on the
second floor. He then distributed a set of revised findings and conditions for the
Planning Commission to review. He then proceeded to discuss revisions to the
findings and conditions in the staff report:
Finding
4 b) Amend to add the front portion of the site
4 d) add. The site has additional buildable area below the existing structure
that could accommodate the proposed addition within the height limits.
0
INDEX
Item 6
Variance No. 1237
Approved
q
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
INDEX
However, the topography of the site makes it difficult to use this buildable area
to construct the proposed addition without adverse impacts from Coast
Highway noise. Additionally the buildable area does not offer equivalent view
opportunities afforded to other similarly located sites on Kings Road that do not
have the same topographical constraints and can build two stores at the top
of the lot.
6 c) be eliminated - as every lot is evaluated on its own merits.
Condition I - shall read, 'Approval of this variance is specific to the
development shown on the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations
( "Plans') dated December 7, 2000. The development shall be constructed in
substantial conformance to the Plans and no further addition shall be
permitted on the property unless an amendment to this Variance is approved
by the Planning Commission. Any further additions to the structure may be
permitted only if the addition permitted by this variance is removed and the
structure restored to its condition at the time of the approval of this variance or
demolished. At such time the structure is restored to its present condition or
demolished the applicant or future owner may then do any remodel or new
construction in conformance to the zoning and building codes in effect at that
time. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a clear set of
plans of the structure as it presently exists including floor plan and elevations so
that any future removal of the addition approved by this variance, it if ever
takes place, can be clearly identified. A restrictive covenant, subject to the
approval of the City Attorney, shall be recorded against the property to
implement this condition:
Continuing, he noted that this deals with the variance itself. In terms of the
design of the structure, the applicant has done a good job of lowering the roof
on the bay side of the property that we feel the roof' should curve back down
towards the'street on the front side of the property. (he passed out a sketch)
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Jim Navai, 1201 Kings Road applicant thanked the Commission for all their
work. After reviewing the sketch, he agreed to pulling the front of the roofline
back.
Dr. Nicholas Yaru, 1210 Kings Rod noted his objection to this variance and
asked that it be denied. He was present at previous hearings and as a result,
he and a neighbor composed a petition, distributed to Planning Commission,
that was signed by 31 homeowners who object to any variance above the 24-
foot height limit. The rest of the neighbors are in a deficit in regards to the value
of properties and views if this height variance is granted. The homeowners
believe that when homes were built and modified on Kings Road, we knew
that there were restrictions. Now, to have you grant -a variance for somebody
because it is noisy, is fife and not proper. We are saying that the variance
should be denied and Mr. Naval should abide by the same rules that all the rest
M
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
of us did.
INDEX
Commissioner Kiser noted that this addition could be built so that it would be
larger and block the view without any variance at all. Are you aware of that?
Dr. Yaru answered that he is aware that this building already has two stories
and would now be three stores. There are balconies on the back of the
building that could be modified into additional rooms without requiring any
variance whatsoever. I as a homeowner do not see why he can not address
his problem and make his changes in a manner that meets the regulations and
codes that all the rest of us have done. He could easily modify that first and
second floor with existing balconies into rooms. Mr. Navai told me that now
that the Balboa Bay Club is building up higher, that he is going to have his view
impaired. He is concerned about that, but not concerned about the rest of us
who are further back from him.
Commissioner Kiser stated that the applicant could actually build an addition
that would run out wider and closer to the side property lines. One of the things
we have to grapple with is competing concerns about what is less detrimental
or could be done without a variance. Discussion continued.
Bill McCullough, 1410 Kings Road stated that he understands that the house
could be built so as to obstruct more view. As one of the homeowners who
signed the petition, all we ask for is that whatever they can built within the
guidelines, let them build. Even if it takes more view than what the proposal is.
That is all we asked before and is all we ask now, to stay within the guidelines of
the City. I bought my home five years ago with the understanding that the
south side could go 29 or 24, that is what I am asking everybody to stay with on
that side.
Public comment was closed.
Chairperson Selich noted that approving a variance is abiding by the rules of
the City, it is part of the Zoning Code. A variance is a technique whereby the
Planning Commission is able use independent judgement to deal with difficult
sites. Certainly these sites along the bluff fronts that have steep topography are
difficult and it is virtually impossible to have a standardized set of rules that can
apply to each and every site. The Planning Commission can evaluate each of
these sites on a case by case basis to make an equitable judgement on the
property.
Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Variance 1237 with the
Findings and Conditions of Approval as. read into the record.
Ms. Temple noted Condition 1 to be revised, the approved site plan, floor
plan d elevations (Plans dated December 7, 2000 as revised by the Planning
Commission).
in
✓]
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
INDEX
Commissioner Kiser noted thot the word, thot, should be odded os port of the
text in the second line offer, At such time... I don't see o dimension on how
for the roof is to be contered down towords the street. Thot should be
clorified os to how for the roof is to go on the Kings Rood side.
Choirperson Selich noted thot the dotted line on the sketch is meont to
indicote where the roof is to be brought down. The dosh line is the elevotion
thot is the top of the Plot portion of the overhond of the Coost Highwoy side
of the property.
Commissioner Tucker then exploined the Vorionce procedure for the benefit
of the oudience.
Ayes:
McDoniel , Kiser. Selich, Gifford, Kronzley. Tucker
Noes:
Agojonion
Absent:
None
Exhibit No. 1
Findings and Conditions of Approvol for
Variance No. 1237
Findings:
Thot the proposed development is consistent with the Generol Plon
since o single- fomily dwelling is o permitted use within the Single - Fomily
Residentiol designotion.
2. Thot this project hos been reviewed, and it quolifies for o cotegoricol
exemption pursuont to the Colifomio Environmentol Quolity Act under
Closs 1 (Minor Alterotion to Existing Structures less thon 2,500 squore
feet or less thon 50 %, of the floor oreo).
3. Thot the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with ony
eosements ocquired by the public of forge for occess through or use of
property within the proposed development since no other public
eosements exist on the site.
4. The speciol circumstonces opplicoble to the property thot the strict
opplicotion of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under idenficol zoning clossificotion
ore:
o) The unique topogrophy of the site of the lot restricts the obility to
comply with the height requirements.
b) The front portion of the site is odditionolly constroined by the
slope os it drops off from the street which mokes it difficult to design o
M
Z
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
`1.111
second story addition on the front of this lot and remain within the
permitted height limit.
C) The addition is generally in conformance with the surrounding
neighborhood when viewed from Kings Road.
d) The site has additional buildable area below the existing
structure that could accommodate the proposed addition within the
height limits. However, the topography of the site makes it difficult to use
this buildable area to construct the proposed addition without adverse
impacts from Coast Highway noise. Additionally the buildable area
does not offer equivalent view opportunities afforded to other similarly
located sites on Kings Road that do not have the same topographical
constraints and can build two stories at the top of the lot.
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:
a) The applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to
other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit.
b) The applicant has designed an addition to the house that lies
to work within the constraints of the lot to the maximum degree
possible.
c) 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:
a) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and
development regulations by way of permitting variance applications.
b) 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.
T' t• hGS ^ ^ ted o her similar re nests in the me =te exeeed the
��o � e'T, p
sireilaF#epe@iFeph .
C) 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:
F71
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
a) The applicant has designed an addition that is generally in
conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when viewed from
the street.
b) When viewed from Kings Road. the house is no taller than one
that could.be constructed in conformance with the height limit.
C) 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.
d) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed
addition. staff does not feel that it will significantly harm the
neighborhood.
e) Other two and three -story elevation residences exist in the area
along Kings Road and as viewed from West Coast Highway.
Conditions:
Approval of this variance is specific to the development shown on the
approved site plan. floor plan and elevations ( "Plans ") dated December 7.
2000 as revised by the Planning Commission. The development shall be
constructed in substantial conformance to the Plans and no further
addition shall be permitted on the property unless an amendment to this
Variance is approved by the Planning Commission. Any further additions to
the structure may be permitted only if the addition permitted by this
variance is removed and the structure restored to its condition at the time of
the approval of this variance or demolished. At such time that the structure
is restored to its present condition or demolished the applicant or future
owner may then do any remodel or new construction in conformance to the
zoning and building codes in effect at that time. The applicant shall submit
to the Planning Department a clear set of plans of the structure as it
presently exists including floor plan and elevations to that any future
removal of the addition approved by this variance. if it ever takes place.
can be clearly idenfirled. A restrictive covenant. subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney. shall be recorded against the property to
implement this condition.
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 are 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
-3T
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
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.
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 sheets 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.
SUBJECT: Starbucks
\ 2801 East Coast Highway
• Planning Directors Use Permit 69 and
• Outdoor Dining 76
Planning Commis review of staff approval of a request to expand an
existing full service sm11 cale eating and drinking establishment into a
neighboring tenant space. ase interior seating from 12 seats to 21 seats,
increase exterior seating from ats to 12 seats and provide separate
resiroom facilities. This application wil ace the existing Planning Director's
Use Permit No. 15 and Accessory Outdoo 'ning Permit No. 39 and their
amendments. Commissioner Kranzley calle this item for Planning
Commission review.
Commissioner Tucker was recused from this matter due to onflicI of
interest.
3<
R1T#"1
Item 7
PDUP 69
OD 76
Approved
�cwPOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250
Hearing Date: December 7, 2000
Agenda Item No.: b
Staff Person: James Campbell
(949)644 -3210
Appeal Period: 14 days
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Navai Residence (Jim Navai, applicant)
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 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. .
10
Vicinity Map
• nr •u ar
y' •m Ill � ji/
. .•01 tll Ali •1(' W �. yam E
SCh001 i,5 iA m
m fm °° � •°s' e
� m
ii � fT y iD
q atl iT 515 a°
b f15
)15
y, i15 iu
a
g a � CUFF DR
Q g 9 s a s
Subject Pro ert
Ux
R om cA
y COAST HWY W
moo. Balboa Bay Club
3
a
200 0 200 Feet
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
December 7, 2000
Pape
`1
Introduction
The subject site is located along Kings Road in Cliff Haven and zoned R -1. The applicant requests
approval of a variance to allow the construction of an 952 square foot second story addition to his
existing 2,868 square foot single family residence (with an existing 506 square foot garage). The
addition exceeds the maximum permitted height limit of 24 feet. The proposed addition to the
existing residence is a third bedroom and includes a bath and walk -in closet.
Background
This item was considered by the Planning Commission on April 13`h and May 18`h of this year. On
April 13, 2000, the Commission directed the applicant to explore different designs that would avoid
a variance or at least minimize the vertical encroachment of the addition above the 24 -foot height
limit. The applicant returned on May 18, 2000 with a redesigned project lowering the roof height by
1 foot. The Planning Commission felt that the redesigned project was not responsive to the
Commission's direction, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
denied the requested variance, being unable to make affirmative findings pursuant to Chapter 20.91.
The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, and on July 25, 2000, the City Council
directed the case back to the Planning Commission due to the pledge of the applicant to redesign
the project. On October 13, 2000, the applicant submitted revised plans for consideration.
Analysis
The site is a bluff top residential property with steep slopes 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 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.
The revised project is slightly larger in area with the second floor addition slightly wider and
therefore larger (952 square feet, 100 additional square feet), but it occupies the same basic
position as the previous design. The applicant also proposes to extend the garage closer to the
street 5 feet 6 inches thereby adding 121 square foot to the front of the garage. The face of the
garage will be 10 feet from the front property line which is the minimum setback. The primary
change in design is the roof. The first roof design had a low sloping roof with the higher end,
furthest away from Kings Road. The applicant has' reversed the slope of the roof making the
highest point at the front of the addition. The roof slopes downward as it progresses away from
Kings Road mimicking the site's topography. The highest point of vertical encroachment is
approximately 9 feet at the west side roof overhang. The vertical encroachment of the east side
roof overhang is approximately 6 feet 9 inches above the 24 foot height limit. The reversal in the
roof slope was one option that the Planning Commission identified at its April 13`h meeting as a
method of reducing potential view blockage. This change does reduce the vertical encroachment
above the height limit and improves the diagonal view across the site from the street. However,
the front elevation is approximately 2.5 feet higher than the previous design and is compliant
Variance No. 1237
December 7. 2000
Page.e
11
with the 24 -foot height limitation. The view from directly across the street is more highly
effected as a result in the roof change.
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. In all but
one request, the approvals were granted. 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.
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.
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.
Variance No. 1237
December 7. 2000
Page.4'
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. As noted in the previous staff reports, the applicant can design an addition that
could further reduce the need to encroach above the height limit. The latest design is one alternative
and others do exist. Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, the
design minimizes view blockage to a greater degree than the previous design, and staff does not feel
that the design is overly obtrusive when viewed from public spaces. The applicant indicated to staff
that if the addition were granted, he would be willing to permanently forego future second story
additions. This can be enforced through a restrictive covenant releasable only by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
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
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:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
DtiL���
Prepared by:
James Campbell
Senior Planner
r C'T�
Variance No. 1237
December 7. 2000
Pale -S
14
Exhibits
1. Findings and conditions of approval
2. Findings for denial
3. Letter from the applicant dated October 10, 2000.
4. Excerpt of Planning Commission meeting minutes dated May 18, 2000
5. Planning Commission Staff report dated May 18, 2000
6. Revised plans: floor plans and elevations
7. Denied plans: site plan, floor plans and elevations
F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\IPLANCOMUOOO\4-13MV1237.DOC
Variance No. 1237
December 7, 2000
Pagekf
Exhibit No. 1
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:
a) The unique topography of the site of the lot restricts the ability to comply with the
height requirements.
b) 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.
c) The addition is generally in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood when
viewed from Kings Road.
The approval of Variance No. 1237 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant for the following reasons:
a) The applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the
neighborhood without exceeding the height limit.
b) The applicant has designed an addition to the house that tries to work within the
constraints of the lot to the maximum degree possible.
C) 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
December 7, 2000
Pagp-T�
I&
a) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations by way of permitting variance applications.
b) 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.
C) 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.
d) 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:
a) The applicant has designed an addition that is generally in conformance with the -
surrounding neighborhood when viewed from the street.
b) When viewed from Kings Road, the house is no taller than one that could be
constructed in conformance with the height limit.
C) 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.
d) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed addition, staff does
not feel that it will significantly harm the neighborhood.
e) 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 dated December 7, 2000 except as noted below. No further second floor
addition shall be permitted unless approved by the Planning Commission.
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.
Variance No. 1237
December 7, 2000
Page.8'
I-4
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
December 7. 2000
Pagr„9'
I
Exhibit No. 2
Findings for Denial of
Variance No. 1237
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:
a) The property owner could design an addition that does not extend over the slope, which
could meet the permitted height requirements.
b) 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.
c) 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.
Variance No. 1237
December 7. 2000
Page,W 1
October 10, 2000
Planning commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach Ca. 92658 -8915
Re: Variance # 1237
Jim Navai
1201 Kings Road
Newport Beach ca. 92663
I am seeking reconsideration of variance 41237 (original request denied on May, 2000) to allow
construction of an 1073 square foot second story addition to existing 2,868 square foot single
family residence .Portion of the addition exceed the permitted height limit of 24 feet. In addition
I am proposing architectural enhancements to the structure as part of this remodeling.
I am making this request following discussion with Mayor Noyse and other members of the City
council and following significant modification to the original roof design
Additionally, and in response to what 1 understand was one of the Planning Commission's
major concerns, l hereby certify - assuming approval of this variance- I do not intend to build
anymore structure on the upper part of my property which would obstruct views in the future.
Thank you for consideration of my request.
Background
City of Newport Beach Staff has analyzed this project and these are some of their findings:
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 deprive such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under identical zoning classification_
2. That the granting of application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
3. That the granting of the applicant 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
�if
properties in the vicinity and the same zoning district.
4. That the granting of such application will not, under circumstances of the particular case
materially affect adversely the health or safety of person residing or working in the
neighborhood
of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be
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 unique topography of the site and the reduce effective lot depth. The site is
constrained by the slop 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 request to exceed the permitted height on
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 request 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 righte because without the approval of a variance, 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.
.........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 hardship resulting from unique topography that existed in the area
and on this particular lot. Without the slope condition, the applicant could construct the addition
within the required height limit without a variance.
d��
FILE COPY
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18.2000
SUBJECT: Naval 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 Navai, 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 131h, 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 Yaruw, 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
,2/'
INDEX
Item No. 1
V 1237
Denied
f��y
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 ollowed 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.
ILF910
e�3
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 last 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
a�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 18, 2000
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 it 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 it the
impacts were minimized, I am not inclined to support this variance, but it 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
INDEX
0 /��
f�/
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 Modtliqafion No. 5059, relative to the proposed sign program for a I Continued to June
multi- tenant buildin 22 ^d
Chairperson Selich noted t 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 an at the signs had been constructed and
installed prior to the Modifications he The signs are not very high quality
and the applicant is asking for an excep to the Sign Regulations. It is my
opinion that what we are trying to do in Coron el Mar is upgrade the business
district. When exceptions are granted, then we uld look for higher quality
signs on these buildings.
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
FI
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
o`
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443250
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
Period:
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:
May 18, 2000
1
Bob Goldin
(949)644 -32019
14 days
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
.:A
• 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
O 11
N m a, ..n o IITTi
a" r School
iT av
�'
y
M1 ppas T.
CLIFF DR
Subject Propert E - _ e _ • y
• §' COAST HWY W
do
Balboa Bay Club+
p
t 200 0 200 Feet
a
No. 1237
_Variance
Navai Residence
Subiect 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 J
May 18. 2000 /1
Pap
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 13th 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 "D ".
Since the April 13'h 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 �Gj
Pag e I
• 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'h meeting)
Variance No. 1237
May 18. 2000 D
Pages✓ ;1'
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.'
above grade.
'A reduction of 1 foot from previous
design.
Setbacks for main structure:
Front: (Kings Road)
10 &
10 &
Sides:
4 &
4 ft.
EL ear.-
10 &
23 ft.
Parkin rovided:
2 enclosed garages aces
2 enclosed garage s -aces
(Italics reflect revisions to the plans from the April 13'h meeting)
Variance No. 1237
May 18. 2000 D
Pages✓ ;1'
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
13'h 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
Pla ning Director
TA l
Prepared by:
BOB GOLDIN
Project Planner
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: IUSERSTLNtSHAREDIIPLANCO ,M200013- 18POV1237.DOC
Varian= No. 1237
May 18, 2000 '
Page,Y 3
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.
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
May 18. 2000
Page b
• 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.
Variance No. 1237
May 18.2000 n�
PageX
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
May 18. 2000 n 1
Page. ✓7
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 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
Page,9/ 3
65;10/2020 65:67 9496565000
Hal 09 00 06n5Gp Hii ralekzadeh
l.1ay n, 2000
City h4ll
3300 Newport BW.
Newport Beach. Ca. 921358
Re: Variance No 1237
Jim N&A 1201 Kings Rd..
JAHSHEED NAVAI PAGE 01
714- 960 -4229 p.1
RECEIVES By
PLANNING D =p FSti�EPIT
Ch( %F ^
P1A:Y i 0 20u0
Ara" °Ifl
71g191i01111fo 1213141516
In response to the planning commissions concern regerding the stove tatlenee (Valence No. 1237), 1 had several meetings
with rrry Arcteteet. He was Rankly able to loww the elevation by a foot. Since tom the Gspinrdnp va Iraanded to keep the
addition to the possible rnlnlmum size, therefor at tHs Point them were riot much more Unlit he oould du to downslre the
project further. Also the lopogmptty, and other major restrictions made R diltcuR doing any other charpas without Sod"
compromise on the function and design. AR of the neighbors that I haw contacted agree that 1 must explain to the
cornmi3w ners In details the alternative to the proposed Flan. The only other practical design would to to go as dose as to
the kings Rd. as possido considering the set beck. this would pica me room to build on a tat area Wthout teed of a aadance.
The problem with this design Is that R Is much more Intrusive, blocks mots dews and K Wd have to be all the way cross ttio
property over 45 Ieel tong at least 24 Mgh tpo"IW 2e teat with a pitch ruol) mince here is only 17 ken Rat area, there would
not be any space to eorsldar any dataltng to enhance the design, ss a result it Wli he • big stucco bolt. Although I WU how a
better 'Jew tom Inside of such stn+cwre, but from the Kings rid R alit be an urnpleaeartt building to took at. This is the reason
why all the n&W"rs that know about both options, pre W ens existing design, since R Is much smaller and better design
which entrances, the neighborhood.
Al this point I mould also mention that the city hod approved other height variance topcoats In tarps Rd. up to 20 ken. Most
recanty 1821 Kings Rd. (under construction) has sppraval of B lest vedanca. Ibis Wilding is muO larger than my bLAUM and
the addition and yet the vadence was approved. This would be the most critical point If I am deNhaed of the same
consideration that was given to W neighbor. Also Balboa Bay Gub was given several height variance permit. Their new
structure aodidon Is directly In tram of mry building and will be obstructing parts my tray Mew and the 4ow tiom Kings Rd.
pormanetltly. Thairterlance hldudes a 23 Teat WgM variance for a Capons. Again not ghlrg me s 9 ken cadence for my WnIy
use seems untalr.
R Is also Important to consider that sa per staffs retort grerOng the permit Is necessary for pmsetMadon and dry ar oymerd of
substantial property rights. And trot the granting at this application Is consistent: Wth the purposes of the code
(5ec,20.91.t135B ) and W II not constitute a grant of special pMiage inconsistent Wth live limltatiots on other properties in the
4clroty and same zoning district. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property. Including size. shape.
topography, location or surroundings, the str cl appacsllon of live above code doper my property of pddlegss enjoyed by
other property in the dcinity and under identical zoning clazalklcatlon. The staff report indicates that past terfance approvals for
Increased height were permitted due to topographical constraint of the properties mere It could bit Viewed as not granting of
Special pt4iage, since the., City has granted cUW similar naquest to exceed the pwrnittod lisiott due to sloped conditions
roosting on aim lar lots.
Flnaft considering all circumstances and trio two Possible options, It Is gone apparetlt ttta ad design Is bv tar a
better, lase intrualve and more appealing for the Kings aid. than the ettemetiva ono s even m ear than the Dose already
approved for others.
Respoaluity: Jim J. NwM
1201 Kings Rd.
Newport Beach, Ca.
Vincent A Roman, PE
810 Kings Road
1VenporlBeach, California 92663
(949)631 -8758, (949) 631 -2380 FAX
E -mail: woman 13 Cadionie.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 wellbeing 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.
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,
J
2�LI�
Vincent P. Roman, PE
I
Robert L. Whitney, 1211 Kings Road, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
May 8, 2000
To whom it May Concern
Re: Variance 41237
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
-39
April 25 2000
City Hall
3300 Newpart Blvd.
Newpart Beach Ca. 92658
Re: Variance Na. 1237
1201 Kings Rd. far Mr. Jim Navai
We live next daar to Mr. Jim Navai (west side)
We understand during last several years anyane that has asked far a hieght
varinance up to 20 feet has recieved a permit far it . Mr. Nava -. shauld be
given the same cancideratian. Nat giving him the permit cauld result building
of a much larger additian that will abstruct even mare views.
Pel,S
4 /GJ /VV
LAO
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
Newport Kings
Newport Beacac
h Ca. 92663 ,
W a-
�3
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY QF "'EACH
AM Mx( 01 2000 PM
7181911 Oli lli 21i12131�1516
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 HosSel
1300 Kings Road
Newport Beach
Cc: Jim Naval
Fad
a
r�
also - tit ern xVi VIN NO Anvo, Novas 1NOd N13N
Oa,o Cs[ ass OVON SONIN tOLt
stare V.NbOi IIVO V - l30 VNOtl00 _
pn an all a v, N.011144b I.VAVN -
z
F
ZV/ 41
c — _
i
i
O •S�
— .. I
.. .6
lti
+e g
tJ
Y
�d
0
I
N�/
W
Q
P R
'R
I
>
W a
k
�\
I
\
^
1
YL•
\
3$
a;
— .. I
.. .6
lti
+e g
tJ
Y
�d
0
.. -- • —
vies e[s - srs %Vi
sns set ers
91e15 VINWOl IIVO bVN 130 VNOVOO
sy iioml vil n 15 3 11 A5 u V
¢n3
y�
4]
�a
v i
J J yeip
f ° 5 2
1 g9k
s2
y iV
A
k�
I
Io
N
3E �� --
,� 6 k U
z�
Ill r
VINNOAllVO'NOV3B 1NOd M3N
OVOa SONIN IOLI
NOMOOV IVAVN
m
N5
p so, r1 [[p ern %Vi VINNO311V3'N0V39 1NOl M3N b
froze VINb Oi IWO[level 130 VNOb00 OVOU SONIN IOLI N
s)4 oM vidn1. DH3H KO4114Qb 1btb_N - ---._.------ ____ -- -
,yM y�� • I
1� iR o
h'lN1'yn1�MV
l
1
Ab
1
11,
n
1�
ki
�(o
-----t VINHO�1110"11,0,Vl�g,OdM3.N I
I
arcs ces o, y
avou
v NOIiI(1(Iv IVAVN
0 It, :le
�
t o "UOJ .1yo 'Wy. 190 y"OH,
N 8 omiv8n 10311 H08
c
-----t VINHO�1110"11,0,Vl�g,OdM3.N I
I
—
4
avou
v NOIiI(1(Iv IVAVN
t
�
— Ii
1:
c
Ip, - A -, ;'.
qj
is
- I nc5 etv - 613 x"3 VINNOdIlVD'tl B 1NOdM3N
-I oLrL EEt er6 pYON S'JNIN LO..
LE9E6 YINtlO31lYb 'tl YW l30 YNOtl Ob S�^✓b'd.'D"!3
sNaoMlvanl�311HZ) v N011lddd IdndN /_�."- ,w� -d,el
id
L
&o �
� � I
\ §¢ €qV AS I
St�
I
'fir I I
-�I
Hoo ., II q
o�vz f• �n rON'
a�3^
\ {{ � t t ;1 • ]if
I 3i
t
er ^3 Tp ryM \.
\ = Ids Ir ��-
\
\ I
�3
_ _S'I,elroi..
I
/
/
/
'fir I I
-�I
Hoo ., II q
o�vz f• �n rON'
a�3^
\ {{ � t t ;1 • ]if
I 3i
t
er ^3 Tp ryM \.
\ = Ids Ir ��-
\
\ I
�3
•b;�z
_ _S'I,elroi..
I
ry
1
O
I wl
—I ` —F - -I lei
•b;�z
I L -W 91cL - c2e 929 xVi VINNO4IIV0 'HOtl3S 1NOdM3N b
I I I I I I I 9925 CL[ 626 OVOtl S`JNIN I
52926 VINHOi IIVO'NVN l30 VNONO0 OZI p N
sNaoM�vanl�allH�av N011lddb' IbAVN bLLVnII3 w 9Yd R_L
J
,54
9M
�C
s
F�
S
1-1
ML/At-
7:1
IL
11
nC-1
i
rp
N
N
D
T-
3�'
�Y
ens =
`tT 2
Z
Q
m
J
,u
0
1�
d.
c
MI`\
Y
:W." CL9 6�6 YYi
YINNO dI1Y O'HJY 39 1tlOdM3N
o
m
m
26
N O I 1 I a
Ml v n 131 I H 0 V
i
rp
N
N
D
T-
3�'
�Y
ens =
`tT 2
Z
Q
m
J
,u
0
1�
d.
c
MI`\
Y
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
o PLANNING DEPARTMENT
F .
p i= 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 CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Fluter Mixed Use Project (Sterns Architecture)
2410 Newport Boulevard
January 9, 2001
18
James Campbell
(949) 644 -3210
None
SUMMARY: A request to construct a mixed use building with 1,500 square feet of
commercial space and 2 residential units. The Use Permit would
allow the project with a reduced commercial FAR of 0.15 where
0.25 is required. The Variance would allow a minor reduction in
landscape area within the required front yard setback area abutting
Newport Boulevard.
ACTION: Refer the item back to the Planning Commission for further
review.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 12 & 13 of Block 223 of Section A together with a portion of
Lot 2, Section 33
GENERAL PLAN: Recreational, Marine Commercial
ZONE: SP -6 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan
(RMC - Recreational, Marine Commercial)
OWNER: Russell E. Fluter, Newport Beach
Discussion
The applicant has submitted a new design that increases the amount of commercial floor space and
reconfigures the parking. The changes in the project are substantial enough that further review of
the project by the Planning Commission is warranted. The applicant concurs with this
recommendation
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council refer this item back to the Planning Commission.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
��1
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
Dec. 23 2000
City Of Newport Beach
the City Council
3300 Newport Bi%d>
Newport Beach,Ca.92663
Re: variance # 1237
1201 Kings Rd.
RECEIVED
'01 A —5 All :18
OFFICE 8R -IHE. CITY CLERK
CITY OF NEWPORT 9EACH
e1RECEIVED AMR AGENDA
PRINTED:" a °I 1 —OI — 0 l
We, the undersigned homeowners on Kings Road, wish to express our News regarding the above referenced %eriance.
It is our understanding that without this %eriance, Mr. Na%ei can construct a bulkier and taller building than he currently has
permission to do. We fear that such a contruction would have a more negative impact on neighbors' News than the one
authorized under this %eriance.
We therefore, strongly support Mr. Na%ei's project as submit
1 h yS
Aw-,u
C�
70 `' AC l2G6 3
� U
C10
Z/Z /ell � %off er le �AJ,3
1
FfMry, December 2; 2000 Amen" 0.11.: RaefrtO Page: t
I�'k3da�
City Of Newport Be*W
the City council
33W Neogort BIM7>
Newport Branch ,Co. 92883
Re: rarWM a 1237
1201 Kinp Rd.
We, the v%lersigned homeowners on Kings Road, wish to express our Mews regarding the aboa rubrenosd cadence.
It is our urWarstanding that without this warteraoe, Mr. Nacai can eonstnkt a bL kier and taller bulldlrlp than he wrently hes
permission to do. We fear that such a contruction Mould ha e a more negative impact on nsiyhbors' Mews than the one
authorised under this variance.
We tN strong support Mr. Naw's project as submitted.
1 ] V
s� ��
zoo b
1vD) 0"
v
lb iIVf- 121-
FY,.OSAdW%L2M AWAWAQP":Fmm Poem t
Ndl f-
hI g at, 63
1dr6 �
City Of Newport Beach
the City Council
3300 Newport BIW>
Newport Beach , Ca. 92663
Re: variance # 1237
1201 Kings Rd.
We, the undersigned homeowners on Kings Road, wish to express our Mews regarding the above referenced variance.
It is our understanding that without this variance, Mr. Navai can construct a bulkier and taller building than he currently has
permission to do. We fear that such a contruction would have a more negative impact on neighbors' dews than the one
authorized under this variance.
We therefore, strongly support Mr. Naval's project as subrnitted.
fvz 9��3
Ir
J9ll
1 «CIS
ICrti�s 12� . N, k? cal .
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" ffL I-q -DI
Tom and Holly Henderson
1110 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
January 5, 2001
Newport Beach City Council
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, Ca 92658
Re: Variance No. 1237
1201 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA
Hearing: 01 -07 -2001 at 6:00 p.m.
Dear Members of the City Council:
This request has been denied once before. Why is it coming up again ?
a
We continue,oppose the above variance application for a "second story addition ". The
existing structure already has 2 stories; one story at street level and one story below street
level. When we added a second story to our own house, we were required to conform to
the height limit as have others on our street. The 24 foot height limit was enacted for a
purpose and should not be easily avoided by the granting of variances. Therefore, we ask
you to adhere to the 24 foot height limit in this case.
Thank you.
Tom and Holly Henderson
�o
c3
-cn
�
m
m
m�
Ay
<
m�
p
M
hm
..77
N
BRUCE AND ALLYSON D'ELISCU
1010 Kings Road RECEIVED
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
January 3, 2001
City Of Newport Beach
City Council Members
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
401 JAN -9 A8 :22
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY'OF N510011T BEACH
Ref.: application for Variance No. 1237 (1201 Kings Road)
Dear Mayor and City Council Members
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" A 1 °I I - q - 01
I would like to respectfully submit my written disapproval and objection to the
proposed application for a height variance No. 1237 for the property located at 1201
Kings Road. The aforementioned application is being heard at a public hearing
scheduled for January 9, 2001, of which I will be unable to attend.
I'm of the opinion that the Planning Commission and City Council should carefully
consider the City's existing zoning ordinances that pertain to height limitations.
Kings Road and several other communities in Newport Beach are unique, in that
CC &R's have not been established nor recorded on these properties, that would
have otherwise preserved views and restricted heights. Additionally, Kings Road is
unique in Newport Beach, in that homes have been built on a "down hill split" lot.
The issue of preservation of view has a history of dispute and debate in the
neighborhood without a resolution, of which has caused hardships and
neighborhood disputes. The disputes among neighbors are not exclusive to "up hill"
sides of the street. New homes are being built on the down hillside of the street and
are impacting the next door neighbors on each adjacent sides, with huge building
envelopes, cantilevered homes and projected massing that are over powering the
hill side especially from the coast highway.
• Pagel
June 25, 1996
The City of Oakland established a zoning regulation for the development of homes
after the fire devastation in Oakland Hills. The city anticipated many of the issues we
now face on Kings Road with respect to homes being proposed and build three to
five times the square footage of pre- existing homes. Lot sizes and variations in
topography, down hill splits, view and character preservation are issues that need to
be regulated and considered. The ordinance deals with lot coverage, building
envelope and height relative to a "stair stepped" method of lot coverage and
massing that would create preservation of view.
I believe the City of Newport Beach Planning Department and Building Department
would be better served to have a defined zoning ordinance and design criteria that
will promote, regulate and replicate the distinctive character of this neighborhood,
with the ability to fairly regulate and approve property owners rights to remodel or
build new homes.
I fully realize the process and time constraints to enact a new zoning ordinance, but
with respect to the aforementioned application and future applications regarding
height variances, I urge you to deny this application. It would not be an
unreasonable request for a temporary halt to building permits on Kings Road, until
such time the planning director reports on ways that would mitigate future disputes
and potential law suits among neighbors. I would suggest that a citywide
comprehensive review by the planning director would reveal the deficiencies and
potential benefits to all the citizens of Newport Beach.
As always, I appreciate your commitment and hard work
Sincerely,
Bruce R. D'Eliscu
2