Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210524_DescriptionCARNEY MEHR A law firm Kendra L. Carney Mehr (619) 890-0259 klcm@carneymehr.com May 24, 2021 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Submitted via email Re: 361 Newport Glen Court – Application for Variance Dear Chair Weigand and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: This firm represents the Richardson family with regards to the present application for variance for 361 Newport Glen Court (the “Property’) in the City of Newport Beach (“City”). The Richardsons are seeking a variance to reduce the rear setback to ten feet in order to maximize their use and enjoyment of their family’s home. Damien and Courtney Richardson have three children and a family dog. Their home is currently three bedrooms and four baths. The variance would allow them to increase the size of their home to five bedrooms and five baths, which would better accommodate their growing family and allow them to remain in a home and community they love. The Property sits on a smaller lot that the surrounding properties and includes unique topography which slopes downward from the street and entry point of their home. The Property currently includes a deck on the lower level that extends into the setback. If the variance is approved, this existing deck space would essentially form the footprint for the additional enclosed portion of the home. The deck will then be relocated to the upper level, above the newly enclosed bedrooms. Pursuant to Chapter 20.52 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code (the “Code”), the Planning Commission is authorized to approve or conditionally approve applications for a PA2021-119 2 variance, such as that requested by the Richardsons. To approve or conditionally approve the variance, in accordance with the Code Section 20.52.090(F), the Planning Commission must make certain findings. These findings are stated below, and followed immediately by supporting facts which should readily allow the Planning Commission to approve the variance requested. 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g. location, shape, size, surrounding, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Here, the Property sits on a smaller lot that the surrounding properties and includes unique topography which slopes downward from the street and entry point of their home. An image attached hereto as Attachment “A” shows the Property’s lot and the neighboring lots which surround the Property. It is apparent from the image that the Property is significantly smaller and narrower than any of the adjacent or neighboring lots. Moreover, the Property’s lot is significantly shorter than that of the adjacent property which abuts the rear of the Property. The smaller lot size and sloping topography combined make the 20 foot rear setback required in this neighborhood significantly more limiting for the Property than for any of the other properties in the vicinity with similar zoning. 2.Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under and identical zoning classification. As described in response to finding number one above, the shape, size, and topography, of the Property mean that the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the Property denies the Richardson family privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Here, a variance is appropriate and may be granted to modify the Code’s applicable rear setback to ten feet to allow the Richardsons to utilize their lot to the same degree as their surrounding neighbors, without negatively impacting those same neighbors. Moreover, this request does not implicate allowed uses; residential density; or allow something that is specifically prohibited by the Code. 3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. As discussed above, the Richardson’s request seeks to allow them to enclose their existing rear deck space for the primary purpose of accommodating their growing family. The family has owned this home since July 15, 2019. While neighboring lots would generally be allowed to similarly expand without having to seek a variance, given the smaller size of the Property, the Richardsons are required to seek the approval of the Planning Commission to allow them to preserve and enjoy their home into the future. PA2021-119 3 Without such approval, the Richardsons must consider alternatives which would require them to sell their home and leave their family’s community. 4. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. As discussed in detail above, and as shown on Attachment “A,” the unique size and shape of the Property deprives the Richardsons from the use and enjoyment other properties in the vicinity already have, without additional approval from the City. Granting the variance requested will not constitute a grant of special privilege for the Richardsons, but, to the contrary, will instead allow them to achieve the same benefits already enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. 5. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or in any way endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare or persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Instead, the variance will allow the Richardson family to maximize their use and enjoyment of the Property without impact to any surrounding property. Given the topography and the fact that the rear yard of the Property is fully surrounded by trees, essentially enclosing the deck space and relocating the current deck up one level does not impact the view of any neighbor, and, as stated by several immediate property owners, only serves to increase the property value of the neighborhood. To ensure that this change and the variance required would not create any disharmony in the neighborhood, the Richardsons have shared their proposed construction plans with each of their immediate neighbors. Each of the adjacent neighbors have provided letters in support of the project and the variance requested, and there is no additional required approval for this work from their Home Owners Association. The letters supporting the variance requested, and project overall, are attached hereto as Attachment “B.” 6. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Granting the variance requested will allow the Richardson family to maximize their use and enjoyment of their home without creating any conflict with the intent and purpose of the Code, the General Plan, or any specific plan. In general, the rear setback established by the Code for this neighborhood is double that of many surrounding neighborhoods in the City. In fact, as identified in Code section 20.18.030, Table 2-2, for most other R-1 zoned properties in the City, the rear setback requirement is only six to ten feet. Especially given PA2021-119 4 the unique characteristics of their lot, to allow the Richardsons a variance to decrease their rear setback to ten feet is in harmony with Code requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact this firm should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter in further detail. On behalf of the Richardson family, we appreciate the Planning Commission’s time, attention, and consideration of this matter. The ten foot variance requested will make a significant impact to this family’s enjoyment of their home and resulting quality of life and we respectfully request the Planning Commission approve the variance requested. Best regards, Kendra L. Carney Mehr PA2021-119 ATTACHMENT A PA2021-119 qJ 1/ PA2021-119 ATTACHMENT B PA2021-119 May 6, 2021 To Whom It May Concern, I own the home directly adjacent to Courtney and Damien Richardson, at 363 Newport Glen Court. The Richardsons have shared their remodel plans with me and I support the variance request to decrease their rear setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet. This will not be detrimental to me or my property and I believe their proposed plans will add value to their home and to our community. Regards, David Williams PA2021-119 May 16, 2021 To Wh01n It May Concern, We own the home directly adjacent to Courtney and Damien Richardson, at 2397 Tustin Avenue. The Richardsons have shared their remodel plans with us and we support the variance request to decrease their rear setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet. This will not be detrimental to us or to our property. We believe their proposed plans will add value to their home and to our c01nmunity. PA2021-119 May 15, 2021 To Whom It May Concern: We live at 2390 Redlands Drive, Newport Beach, which is the home directly behind Courtney and Damien Richardsons home. The Richardsons have shared their remodel plans with us and we support the variance request to decrease their rear setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet. This will not be detrimental to us nor to our property. We believe their proposed plans will add value to their home as well as to our community. Sincerely, et~'~ Richard and Shere~ PA2021-119