Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Richardson Residence Variance_PA2021-119CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 19, 2023 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) •Variance SITE LOCATION: 361 Newport Glen Court APPLICANT/OWNER: Damien and Courtney Richardson PLANNER: Liz Westmoreland, Senior Planner 949-644-3234 or lwestmoreland@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant proposes to construct an addition of approximately 665 square feet to an existing 3,740-square-foot single-family residence that would encroach up to 10 feet into the required 20-foot rear setback. The proposed addition would occupy the footprint of an existing raised deck that encroaches 10-feet into the rear setback. The project includes the replacement of the existing raised deck over the new addition area and would maintain the same 10-foot encroachment into the rear setback. The project complies with all other development standards such as lot coverage, height, and parking, and no other deviations are requested. RECOMMENDATION 1)Conduct a public hearing; 2)Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3)Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-006 approving PA2021-119 for a variance to construct a residential addition (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 2 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE RS-D (Single Unit Detached) R-1-7200 (Single-Unit Residential) Single-Family Residences NORTH RS-D; City of Costa Mesa R-1-7200; City of Costa Mesa Single-Family Residences SOUTH RS-D R-1-7200 Single-Family Residences EAST RS-D R-1-7200 Single-Family Residences WEST RS-D R-1-7200 Single-Family Residences Subject Property 3 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting and Existing Conditions The subject property is located within the Newport Glen Court community, which is between Upper Newport Bay and the City of Costa Mesa. This area of the City was annexed from the County of Orange in 2002. The Newport Glen Court Community is gated and includes 11 single-family residences along Newport Glen Court, a private street and cul-de-sac that extends from the terminus of Tustin Avenue. Four of the 11 residences are located on a small street (“accessway”) that extends from the circular portion of the Newport Glen Court cul-de-sac. The property is located at the end of the accessway (refer to Figure 1). Figure 1: Newport Glen Court Community The subject lot slopes signficantly from the front of the property to the rear yard with a slope of approximately 17 percent (i.e. a drop of 21 feet). Therefore, the front of the home that is visible from the accessway is one-story, where the rear of the single-family residence appears as two stories. The rear yard where there is an existing uncovered deck is relatively flat and abuts large lots along Redlands Drive. The rear yard is surrounded by mature trees. The property is also adjacent to two single-family residences along each side property line. The existing single-family residence consists of 3,042 square feet of living area in two levels and a 697-square-foot three-car garage. The existing residence includes three bedrooms and four bathrooms. The structure is approximately 30 feet in height from the 5 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 4 finished floor to the highest ridge. The one-story portion of the structure at the front of the property is approximately 17 feet in height. Project Description The applicant desires to add two bedrooms and one bathroom on the lower level while maintaining as much of the original construction as possible. The project includes minor remodeling of the kitchen to construct a laundry room in a breakfast area. In total, the applicant proposes to construct an addition of approximately 665 square feet to the existing 3,740-square-foot single-family residence that would encroach up to 10 feet into the required 20-foot rear setback. The proposed addition would occupy the footprint of an existing raised deck that encroaches 10-feet into the rear setback. The project includes replacement of the existing raised deck over the new addition area and all new construction would maintain the same 10-foot encroachment into the rear setback. See Attachment No. PC 4 for project plans. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan and Zoning Code The property is categorized RS-D (Single Unit Residential Detached) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the R-1-7200 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District. Both are intended to provide areas appropriate for the development of single- family residential uses. The R-1-7200 District is relatively small and located near the City of Costa Mesa (see Figure 2). The “7200” label refers to the minimum lot size and the lot is 7,995 square feet in area. 6 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 5 Figure 2: R-1-7200 Zoning District The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards as illustrated in Table 1, except for the requested encroachment into the rear setback. Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) requires a minimum 20-foot rear setback for the R-1-7200 zone as measured from the rear property line to the face of the building finish. Deviations of up to 10 percent are allowed with the approval of a modification permit (i.e., up to 2 feet into the 20-foot setback). Since the deviation requested is a 10-foot encroachment or 50 percent, a variance is required to implement the project. Table 1: Zoning Code Development Standards Table 1 – Zoning Code Development Standards Development Standard Standard Project Setbacks (min.) Front 20 feet 20 feet (no change) Sides 5 feet 6 feet (no change) Rear (Interior) 20 feet 10 feet (proposed addition and deck) 29 feet (existing residence to remain) Allowable Lot Coverage (max.) 60 percent 4,797 square feet 45 percent 2,788 square feet Allowable Stories (max.) 2-stories 2-stories 7 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 6 Parking (min.) 3-car garage 3-car garage Height (max.) 35 feet 35 feet The overall design, based upon the proposed plans, meets residential design criteria provided within NBMC Section 20.48.180(B)(2) (Design Criteria) by avoiding long unarticulated walls, and providing architectural treatment on the new elevations. The visual massing of the encroaching area is reduced by including variation in the wall plane and building modulation with an open, uncovered deck above the addition. Variance Findings A variance is a request to relieve a project from complying from certain standards when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. A variance can only be granted to maintain parity between the variance site and nearby properties in the same zoning district to avoid the granting of special privileges to one property. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances – Findings and Decision), the Planning Commission must make the following findings to approve a variance: A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; B. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Unique Circumstances and Property Constraints The primary constraint at the property is the position of the existing residence and the on- site turnaround area at the front of the property that restricts the property owners from building at the front of the site. As previously depicted in Figure 1, of the 11 properties on 8 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 7 Newport Glen Court, 10 have standard driveway access from the street with a garage that is facing the street. Four of the residences are located on a small accessway that extends from the circular portion of the Newport Glen Court cul-de-sac (refer to Figure 3 below). The property is located at the end of the accessway with a side-facing garage that is set back approximately 40 feet. Figure 3: Newport Glen Court Access Layout Due to the unique configuration of the garage and location of the property at the very end of the accessway, the property must maintain a significant driveway area to allow vehicles to turnaround. Where the other single-family residences in the Newport Glen Court Community and within the R-1-7200 Zoning District have a wider private street, and cul- de-sac to provide vehicle maneuvering area, the property is not afforded the same type of access by its design. Instead, the property’s driveway serves as a private turnaround area, which is a unique circumstance (see Figures 4a and 4b). 9 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 8 Figure 4a: On-Site Turn-Around (Birdseye Aerial View) Figure 4b: On-Site Turn-Around (Oblique Aerial View) 10 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 9 This on-site turnaround area significantly reduces the practical buildable area of the property, and the existing layout of the residence makes it difficult to modify without significant reconstruction (see Design Alternatives discussion below). Properties in the R- 1-7200 Zoning District have a maximum lot coverage of 60 percent, which means that 60 percent of the entire lot can be covered by a roof or deck over 30 inches in height. The proposed addition cannot be located within the 20-foot front setback, nor can it be in front of the garage within the on-site turnaround area without completely rebuilding and reconfiguring the three-car garage. The on-site turnaround area is approximately 930 square feet and all setbacks on the property add up to approximately 3,430 square feet. Both areas are “non-buildable.” As such, they reduce the potential onsite lot coverage from the 60-percent maximum coverage (4,797 square feet) to 45 percent (3,635 square feet) of covered area. This reduction represents a roughly 20 percent reduction in the overall coverage area of the property that is not applicable to similar properties within the same zoning district. Most single-family residential properties without alley access are subject to a 10-foot rear setback; however, properties within the R-1-7200 Zoning District are subject to a 20-foot rear setback. Although the property has a larger rear yard because of this larger setback requirement, the area is filled with mature trees and is not as usable as typical lots in the R-1-7200 Zoning District. The majority of lots in the R-1-7200 Zoning District have flat, open rear yards that can accommodate pools, patios, and other typical rear yard amenities. Therefore, an outdoor deck is proposed above the new addition to provide functional outdoor space at the property. Parity with Other Properties The requested Variance would allow for an addition that relocates potential floor area from the “unbuildable” on-site turnaround area to the rear setback. The proposed addition is 665 square feet, located in the footprint of an existing open deck and it is smaller in area than the “unbuildable” area on the property that is 930 square feet. Further, the proposed lot coverage of 45 percent is still less than the 60 percent maximum allowed in the Zoning District. The proposed addition would allow the Property owner to achieve a lot coverage that is typical of other lots in the same Zoning District. No other properties in the Newport Glen Court Community have their own on-site turnaround area to access the garage and street. The Variance is uniquely tied to the configuration of the existing structure and would not be applied to the construction of a new single-family residence on the Property. Condition of Approval No. 5 in the Draft Resolution (Attachment No. PC 1) requires that any future construction be evaluated for substantial conformance with this approval and that construction of a new single-family residence would not be considered substantially conforming. Therefore, the Variance would not apply to a new residence constructed on the property. 11 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 10 Compatibility The existing raised deck in the rear setback was constructed at or near the time the single- family residence was built in the early 1980’s. The existing raised deck and required safety railing are roughly 10 feet above the natural grade of the rear yard and the deck takes access from the lower level of the house. The proposed project includes replacing the raised deck above the new bedroom addition approximately 10 feet higher than the existing safety railing. The existing encroachment has not proven to be detrimental to surrounding residents, nor has it created hazards to the public. The proposed deck would take access from the main level of the house and would likely be more useful given its proximity to the living room, dining room, and kitchen. The proposed addition and deck would be set back 14 to 15 feet from both side property lines, where only five-foot side setbacks are required. This would create visual relief and interest while respecting the privacy of adjacent neighbors. Additionally, there are mature trees along the rear of the Property that provide a buffer from adjacent neighbors. Lastly, the directly adjacent property owners have submitted letters of support for the project including 363 Newport Glen Court, 2397 Tustin, and 2390 Redlands Drive (see Attachment No. PC 3). Therefore, this Variance would not have a substantial visual effect on the neighborhood. Design Alternatives Several alternatives were evaluated to provide the Applicant with additional floor area at the site in a manner that complies with Title 20 of the NBMC that does not require complete construction of the residence. First, a design was considered to construct the addition in the rear yard in compliance with the 20-foot rear setback. However, the new bedrooms would be roughly 8 feet 6 inches in depth and not a sufficient return on the investment nor would it meet the Applicant’s objective. Second, locating the addition area within the driveway maneuvering area was not feasible without completely redesigning the garage and the front of the single-family residence. Additionally, adding the floor area as a loft level above the main living area was not feasible due to the low ceiling heights resulting from the steep slope of the roof (12:12 pitch). Further, locating the addition above the existing garage would require the reconstruction of the garage to structurally accommodate the addition and it would introduce a two-story building mass at the front of the lot proximate to several other rear yards of abutting lots. Lastly, although the existing single-family residence has an open courtyard leading to the main entrance of the residence, locating the new addition there would result in the main entry to the residence through the existing master bedroom or the new bedrooms. Therefore, encroachment into the rear setback is the most practical option to provide additional floor area without rebuilding significant sections of the residence. 12 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 11 Summary In conclusion, the proposed encroachment into the rear yard setback would occupy the footprint of an existing raised deck and would maintain a 10-foot separation to the rear property line, and 14 to 15 foot separation to the side property lines. The height of the new structure is approximately 20 feet, which is 15 feet below the height limit. The closest residences are 27 and 45 feet away from the new structure, and as a result, the addition should not prove detrimental to the surrounding properties. The proposed encroachment would not result in a structure that is larger than the maximum allowed for the Zoning District. The on-site turnaround and existing configuration of the single-family residence are unique circumstances that are not applicable to other similar properties within the same Zoning District and granting of the variance would not be considered a special privilege. Staff believes all findings for approval can be made as evidenced by the facts in the draft Resolution attached as Attachment No. PC 1. Alternatives The following alternatives are available to the Planning Commission should they feel the facts are not in evidence of support for the project application: 1. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. Changes may include but are not limited to approving the proposed floor area encroachment into the setback and denying the deck encroachment or reducing the proposed setback encroachment to alleviate concerns. If any requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in a resolution. Environmental Review This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Division 6 because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The Class 1 exemption includes additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet whichever is less. In this case, the Project is an addition of 665 square feet to an existing 3,740 square foot single-family residence, an increase of roughly 18 percent. 13 Richardson Residence Variance (PA2021-119) Planning Commission, January 19, 2023 Page 12 Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: ______________________________ Liz Westmoreland, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Applicant’s Justification PC 3 Public Comments PC 4 Project Plans 14 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions 15 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE16 RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR REAR SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 361 NEWPORT GLEN COURT (PA2021-119) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Kendra Carney Mehr on behalf of the owner (“Applicant”), with respect to property located at 361 Newport Glen Court, and legally described as Lot 8 of Tract No. 9776 in the Unincorporated Territory of Orange County, California (“Property”), requesting approval of a variance. 2. The Applicant seeks to construct an addition of approximately 665 square feet to an existing 3,740 square-foot single-family residence that would encroach up to 10 feet into the required 20 foot rear setback (“Project”). The proposed addition would occupy the footprint of an existing raised deck that encroaches 10 feet into the rear setback. The Project includes replacement of the existing raised deck over the new addition area and would maintain the same 10 foot encroachment into the rear setback. The Project complies with all other development standards such as lot coverage, height, and parking, and no other deviations are requested. 3. The Property is categorized RS-D (Single Unit Residential Detached) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the R-1-7200 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District. 4. The Property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 19, 2023, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 2 of 11 2. The Class 1 exemption includes additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet whichever is less. In this case, the Project is an addition of 665 square feet to an existing 3,740 square foot single-family residence, an increase of roughly 18 percent. Therefore, the Class 1 exemption applies. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances - Findings and Decision) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of a variance are set forth: Finding: A. That there are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the 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. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Most residential properties without alley access are subject to a 10 foot rear setback; however, properties within the R-1-7200 Zoning District are subject to a 20 foot rear setback. Although the Property has a larger rear yard because of the larger setback, that area is filled with mature trees and is not as functional as typical lots in the R-1- 7200 Zoning District. The majority of lots in the R-1-7200 Zoning District have flat, open rear yards that can accommodate pools, walk-out patios, and other typical yard amenities. Therefore, an outdoor deck is proposed above the new addition to provide functional outdoor space at the Property. 2. The Property is in the gated Newport Glen Court Community, which includes 11 single-family residences along Newport Glen Court, a private street and cul-de-sac that extends from the terminus of Tustin Avenue. This area of the City was annexed from the County of Orange in 2002. Of the 11 properties, 10 have standard driveway access from Newport Glen Court with a garage that is facing the street. Four of the residences are located on a small street (“accessway”) that extends from the circular portion of the Newport Glen Court cul-de-sac. The Property is located at the end of the accessway with a side-facing garage that is set back approximately 40 feet. Due to the unique configuration of the garage and location of the Property at the very end of the accessway, the Property must maintain a significant driveway area to allow vehicles to turnaround. Where the other single-family residences in the Newport Glen Court Community and within the R-1-7200 Zoning District have a street, accessway, or cul-de-sac to maneuver, the Property is not afforded the same type of access by its design. Instead, the Property’s driveway serves as a private turnaround area, which is a unique circumstance 3. This on-site turnaround area significantly reduces the practical buildable area of the Property. Properties in the R-1-7200 Zoning District have a maximum lot coverage of 60 percent, which means that 60 percent of the entire lot can be covered by a roof 18 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 3 of 11 or deck over 30 inches in height. The proposed addition cannot be located within the 20 foot front setback, nor can it be in front of the garage within the on-site turnaround area without completely rebuilding and reconfiguring the three car garage. The on- site turnaround area is approximately 930 square feet and all setbacks on the Property add up to approximately 3,430 square feet. Both of these areas are “non- buildable.” As such, they reduce the potential onsite lot coverage from the 60 percent maximum coverage or 4,797 square feet, to 45 percent or 3,635 square feet of covered area. This reduction represents a roughly 20 percent reduction in the overall coverage area of the Property that is not applicable to similar properties within the same zoning district. Finding: B. That strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the Property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Applicant seeks to maintain as much of the original construction as possible while adding two additional bedrooms. Other properties in the same zoning district do not have a side-access garage with necessary vehicular access areas and are able to achieve a lot coverage that is closer to the maximum allowed in the Zoning District (60 percent maximum). 2. The Property is 7,995 square feet and the maximum allowable lot coverage is 4,797 square feet. However, the practical buildable footprint (lot coverage) of the Property is approximately 3,635 square feet or 1,162 square feet less than the limit allowed by the R-1-7200 Zoning District. Other similarly sized properties in the within the same zoning district have buildable areas that allow them to build up to 60 percent lot coverage. Thus, the Property is disproportionally limited as compared to other properties of a similar shape with identical zoning. 3. Several alternatives were evaluated to provide the Applicant with additional floor area at the site in a manner that complies with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC. Locating the addition area within the driveway maneuvering area was not feasible without completely redesigning the garage and the front of the single-family residence. Additionally, adding the floor area as a loft level within the main living area was not feasible due to the low ceiling heights resulting from the steep slope of the roof (12:12 pitch). Further, locating the addition on the existing garage would require the reconstruction of the garage to structurally accommodate the addition. Lastly, although the existing single-family residence has an open courtyard leading to the main entrance of the residence, locating the new addition there would result in the main entry to the residence through the existing master bedroom or the new bedrooms. Therefore, encroachment into the rear setback is the most viable option to provide additional floor area without rebuilding significant sections of the residence. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 4 of 11 Finding: C. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the Applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The requested variance would allow for an addition that relocates potential floor area from the “unbuildable” on-site cul-de-sac to the rear setback. The proposed addition is 665 square feet, where the “unbuildable” area on the Property is 930 square feet. The Applicant is not requesting the full 930 square feet to be relocated in the setback. Further, the proposed lot coverage of 45 percent is still less than the 60 percent maximum allowed in the Zoning District. The proposed addition would allow the Property owner to achieve a lot coverage that is typical of other lots in the same Zoning District. 2. The design and location of the Project achieve reasonable development of the Property while considering its constraints. The granting of the variance preserves the owner’s right to develop a useable structure that fits within the maximum limitations identified for the Zoning District. Furthermore, it preserves the owner’s ability to construct an uncovered outdoor deck at the second level, which is compatible with the neighborhood where single-unit residences with outdoor decks are common. 3. Facts 1 and 2 in Support of Finding A are incorporated herein by reference. 4. Fact 3 in Support of Finding B is incorporated herein by reference. Finding: D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other residential properties, especially those zoned Single-Unit Residential (R-1). It allows the Property owner to maintain equity with other single- family residences in the neighborhood where additions or larger single-family residences have been constructed. 2. The requested variance would not result in more floor area or a higher lot coverage than surrounding properties of similar size in the same zoning district. There are other properties in the Newport Glen community that cannot build up to the 60 percent maximum lot coverage due to setback application and lot configuration constraints, however, the Property is the most restricted with at least 930 square feet of the buildable area of the site rendered “unbuildable.” 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 5 of 11 3. The buildable area for the Property is disproportionately limited as compared to adjacent R-1-7200 zoned properties and the requested variance would allow the Property to have a buildable area closer to other properties in the identical zoning district. The Project would result in a lot coverage of approximately 45 percent (3,623 square feet), where 60 percent (4,797 square feet) lot coverage is allowed. Therefore, the Applicant would not be granted a greater lot coverage limit than adjacent property owners within identical zoning districts and no exceptions to lot coverage are requested. 4. No other properties in the Newport Glen Court Community have their own on-site cul-de-sac to access the garage and street. The variance is uniquely tied to the configuration of the existing structure and would not be applied to the construction of a new single-family residence on the Property. Condition of Approval No. 5, requires that any future construction be evaluated for substantial conformance with this approval and that construction of a new single-family residence would not be considered substantially conforming. 5. The Project would not result in a substantial increase in total lot coverage on the Property that could be viewed as the granting of a special privilege, and no additional deviations are requested such as relief from garage size, lot coverage, or building height limitations. The Project would remain consistent with the lot coverage of other similarly shaped properties in the same zoning district. Finding: E. That the 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. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The overall design, based upon the proposed plans, meets residential design criteria provided within Section 20.48.180(B)(2) (Design Criteria) of the NBMC by avoiding long unarticulated walls, and providing architectural treatment on the new elevations. The visual massing of the encroaching area is reduced by including variation in the wall plane and building modulation with an open, uncovered deck above the addition. 2. The City’s Public Works Department has reviewed the Project for compliance with line-of-sight considerations and consistency with public easements. The proposed encroachment is in the rear of the site and adjacent to other rear setbacks of single- family residences. There are no roads, driveways, or other access areas within the rear of the Property. Additionally, there are easements located on other adjacent properties that do not apply to this Property. Therefore, there are no circulation or easement conflicts created by the encroachment. 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 6 of 11 3. The proposed addition is located within the approximate footprint of an existing raised deck. Disturbance to the rear slope of the Property would be minimal. The City’s Building Division reviewed the Project for compliance with water quality and grading requirements and provided conditions of approval for the Project to prevent any hazards or safety issues. 4. The proposed addition will be required to comply the latest version of the California Building Code including energy, seismic, and structural standards. 5. Based on permit records and historical aerial images, the existing raised deck in the rear setback was constructed at or around the time the single-family residence was built in 1980. The existing raised deck and required safety railing are roughly 10 feet above the natural grade of the sloping rear yard. With implementation of the Project, it would be replaced above the new bedroom addition. Therefore, the proposed deck railing would be approximately 10 feet higher than the existing height of the deck railing. The existing encroachment has not proven to be detrimental, nor has it created hazards to the public. 6. The proposed addition into the rear setback would be approximately 35 feet wide, where the existing primary structure is 52 feet wide. The remaining 17 feet of the existing primary structure would maintain the existing 20 foot-rear setback. The encroachment into the setback represents approximately 54 percent of the width of the 65 foot wide lot and it is at the rear of the Property. Therefore, this variance would not have a substantial visual effect on the neighborhood. 7. The proposed deck and addition area would be set back 14 to 15 feet from the side property lines, where only five foot side setbacks are required. This would create visual relief and interest while respecting the privacy of adjacent neighbors. Additionally, there are mature trees along the rear of the Property that provide a buffer from adjacent neighbors. Finding: F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is zoned Single-Unit Residential (R-1-7200) which is intended to provide for single-family residential uses. The existing building is a single-family residence, which would not change as part of the Project; therefore, approval of the variance will not affect density or intensity of uses. 2. Pursuant to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC, a structure of up to 4,790 square feet of covered area (or 60 percent of the lot) could be constructed on the Property. The proposed addition and remodel would result in a structure totaling 4,404 square feet of floor area or 3,623 square feet of covered area, which includes 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 7 of 11 a 697 square foot three car garage. Thus, the rear setback encroachment is not requested for the purpose of overbuilding the site, but rather to accommodate a reasonable sized single-family residence that would remain consistent with the average size single-family residence in the vicinity. 3. The proposed encroachment of 10 feet into the required 20 foot rear setback would result in a 10 foot rear setback that is consistent with other R-1 Zoning Districts in the City. 4. The Property is not located within a specific plan area or the Coastal Zone. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance PA2021-119 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 8 of 11 BY:_________________________ Curtis Elmore, Chair BY:_________________________ Sarah Klaustermeier, Secretary 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 9 of 11 EXHIBIT “A” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this variance. 4. The variance filed under PA2021-119 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions) of the NBMC, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 5. This approval only applies to the Project proposed under PA2021-119. If more than 50 percent of exterior walls of the structure are removed and replaced, or the Building Division deems the project new construction, then the variance is no longer effective, and the Project will need to be revised to comply with all current Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) regulations such as setbacks. If the existing single-family residence is demolished and new structure is built, that structure shall be subject to all Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) standards in place at the time of new construction. 6. Demolition beyond the approved scope of work requires Planning Division approval prior to commencement of work. Approval of revisions to project plans are not guaranteed. Any changes in the current scope of work may require a new variance or other discretionary permit. 7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 8. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 25 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 10 of 11 9. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 11. Should the Property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, Property owner or the leasing agent. 12. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity – Noise Regulations) of the NBMC, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 13. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of Richardson Residence Variance including, but not limited to, PA2021-119. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The Applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The Applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Division 14. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code (CBC). The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 15. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall 26 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2023-006 Page 11 of 11 provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Geotechnical report shall be submitted to the building division for review. 17. The design shall include natural light and ventilation for the existing family room or provide mechanical ventilation and artificial light in accordance with CBC Chapter R303.1. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project plans shall be updated to reflect that all site drainage will be taken to the street. 27 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE28 Attachment No. PC 2 Applicant’s Justification 29 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE30 CARNEY 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 Property is located within the City’s R-1-7200 zone. 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 R-1-7200 Zone applies to one, small area within the City, located near Upper Newport Bay, on the northwest side of Irvine Avenue. The Property sits on a uniquely smaller lot than the immediate surrounding properties and includes unique topography which slopes dramatically downward from the street and entry point of their home. The slope and the resulting limitations is pictured on the plans submitted concurrently with this Statement. There does not appear to be another similarly situated property within the same zone. Instead, a survey of the zone shows that similarly sized parcels are flat, not sloped. The Property currently includes an existing deck on the lower level that extends into the 31 2 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 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 than the immediate, surrounding properties and includes unique topography within the R-1-7200 zone which slopes dramatically downward from the street and entry point of their home. An image attached hereto as Attachment “A” shows entire R-1-7200 zone and 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. While the lot size is somewhat similar to lots in other neighborhoods within this zone, those lots are located on flat parcels. 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 immediate vicinity or those within the same 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. Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.18, Table 2-2 “Development Standards for Single-Unit Residential Zoning Districts” limits residences within the R-1-7200 zone to only two stories in height. However, the degree of the slope requires that the second story is the entryway from the street and the first level only extends further back on the parcel. As shown on the plans, included with this submittal, the Richardsons cannot comply with the development standards and fully utilize the lot in a manner similar to other flat parcels within the same R-1-7200 zone. Essentially, the physical limitations of the parcel preclude any other expansion. 32 3 The structure is already built out to the allowed front and side setbacks. Therefore neither the enclosure nor the deck can be relocated without requiring a variance. While the Applicant’s architect did consider other options for the expansion, both the physical limitations presented by the topography of the Property and structural limitations show the expansion into the rear setback is the only viable option. For example, in his review, the architect considered whether an expansion into the courtyard of the home or an addition above the garage was appropriate. However, neither of these proved to be viable options. The most obvious impediment for either of these options would be the need to completely remove and redesign the roofline and dormers. The existing roof of the Property is very steep. And, not only would making the structure taller above the garage be an eyesore and not conform to the aesthetics of the surrounding community it faces, but it would violate the existing design standards by adding a third story to the home. Additionally, building a bedroom into the courtyard would eliminate the entry into the home and make no logical sense. The design submitted is by far the simplest, cleanest, and least obtrusive to the neighborhood. 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 flat neighboring lots would generally be allowed to similarly expand without having to seek a variance, given the smaller size and slope 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. 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 topography 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 33 4 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 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 34 ATTACHMENT A 35 36 qJ 1/ 37 CARNEY MEHR  A law firm  Kendra L. Carney Mehr  (619) 890‐0259  klcm@carneymehr.com  December 5, 2022 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Attn: Liz Westmoreland, Senior Planner 100 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Sent via email Re: 361 Newport Glen Court – Application for Variance to Maintain Rear Deck Dear Chair Kleiman 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 Property is located within the City’s R-1-7200 zone. 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. The Property currently includes an existing deck on the lower level that extends into the setback. If the variance is approved, this existing deck space would form the footprint for the additional living space for the home. The deck will then be relocated to the street level, above the newly enclosed bedrooms, extending naturally from the second story living area. The existing, approved deck is already raised to compensate for the slope of the property, and extends from the ground floor of the home. Keeping the existing deck space will allow for a safer and more aesthetically pleasing design, and is necessary given the extremely limited buildable space of this parcel. Importantly, allowing the Richardsons to keep this deck does not increase the existing use or size of the deck and merely maintains the existing approved extension into setback. 38 2 Summary of Property and Proposed Use The R-1-7200 Zone applies to one, small area within the City, located near Upper Newport Bay, on the northwest side of Irvine Avenue. This area was annexed by the City, from the County of Orange, in 2002. The Property is the last parcel in a private development and sits on a small and uniquely purposed lot compared to the immediate surrounding properties and the lots within this zone. In fact, its lot width is only 65 feet despite the Zoning District Development Standards requiring a minimum of 70 feet. As shown on the attached tract map and photo of the property, this property is the smallest lot within the immediate Newport Glen Court neighborhood. While it is similar in size to smallest lots within the entire R-1-7200 zone, it is uniquely situated in that it is at the crest of a narrow street at the top of a hill. The hill and street dead-end onto the lot, and a substantial portion of the level part of the lot is required for a turn-around driveway that essentially acts as its own, necessary cul-de-sac. The need to utilize such a large portion of the parcel for a turnaround severely limits the useable area of this already small lot. Moreover, the lot includes unique topography which slopes dramatically downward from the street, driveway, and entry point of their home. There does not appear to be another similarly situated property within the same zone. Instead, a survey of the zone shows that similarly sized parcels are flat, not sloped, and none have the same turnaround requirements which significantly limit the buildable space on the lot, eliminate any front yard, and push the house farther back from the street than required by the setbacks for this zone. A thorough review of the history of permit approvals, annexation, and these unique characteristics further supports the requested variance. Additionally, the existing rear deck, which extends into the rear setback and will form the footprint to enclose the additional living space, was in place prior to the annexation (which can be seen in historic satellite images) and based on its appearance, was likely constructed at the same time as the home. While there are permits on file for the development of this property and the entire tract, the County does not have any plans. Attempts were made to contact the original developer and architect, but the developer merged many decades ago and the architecture firm is no longer in existence. However, there was one primary owner prior to the Richardsons and there is evidence that the original construction and other improvements have been permitted which makes it likely that the deck was approved as part of the original construction and certainly prior to annexation of this area by the City of Newport Beach. As previously discussed, the architect who prepared the enclosed plans determined that the variance for the addition requested, which would merely enclose the existing footprint of the home, is the most appropriate modification given the height requirements of the design standards, the extremely steep roof of the existing structure, the position of the 39 3 garage, the slope of the property, and the need to maintain the front access to the property and adequate driveway and vehicular turnaround space. As a result, there is no other space in which to utilize the exterior of the property as an outdoor extension of the home’s living space, which is expected and necessary in Southern California. Any limitation which prohibits the extension of the deck across the full roof of the addition would still require a substantial investment of funds and, due to the awkward layout, would likely result in a very poor return on investment and is therefore undesirable from a cost-benefit perspective. Finally, the existing home has a steep pitched roofline which is located at the highest and most visible point of the Richardson’s property. This is also amongst the highest points in the Newport Glen Court community, due to its location at the top of the Newport Glen Court hill. It would be highly unappealing to add a roof-top deck in any location other than directly off the street level of the home. To do otherwise would interrupt the scale and context of this gated community. As proposed, the deck would remain tucked behind the home, and, due to the unique topography, would only be at street level, and therefore would not impede on the privacy of the neighboring properties. Justification 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 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 than the immediate, surrounding properties, does not meet the width standards for the zone, and includes unique topography within the R-1-7200 zone which slopes dramatically downward from the street and entry point of the home. And, most importantly, the Property is readily distinguishable from all other lots in the zone due to the fact that its driveway is required to be used as a turnaround due to the fact that Newport Glen Court narrows and dead ends on this lot. An image attached hereto as Attachment “A” shows entire R-1-7200 zone and 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 more narrow than any of the adjacent or neighboring lots. 40 4 Moreover, the Property’s lot is significantly shorter than that of the adjacent property which abuts the rear of the Property. While the lot size is somewhat similar to lots in other neighborhoods within this zone, those lots are located on flat parcels with normal driveways. The smaller lot size, space required for a turnaround, and sloping topography combined make the 20-foot rear setback required in this neighborhood significantly more limiting for the Property, which is already significantly limited by the space required for the driveway turnaround, than for any of the other properties in the immediate vicinity or those within the same zoning. 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. As described in response to Finding Number One above, the shape, size, topography, and mostly the driveway turnaround 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. As shown on the plans, included with this submittal, the Richardsons cannot comply with the development standards and fully utilize the lot in a manner similar to other flat parcels within the same R-1-7200 zone. Essentially, the physical limitations of the parcel preclude any other expansion. The structure is already built out to the space left by the large driveway/turnaround and allowed side setbacks. Therefore, the existing deck may only be relocated upwards, although within the identical footprint. While the Applicant’s architect did consider other options for the expansion, both the physical limitations presented by the topography of the Property and structural limitations show the expansion into the rear setback is the only viable option. For example, in his review, the architect considered whether an expansion into the courtyard of the home or relocating the deck above the garage or currently existing living space was appropriate. However, neither of these proved to be viable options. The most obvious impediment for either of these options would be the need to completely remove and redesign the roofline and dormers. The existing roof of the Property is very steep. And, not only would making the structure taller above the garage be an eyesore and not conform to the aesthetics of the surrounding community it faces, but it would violate the existing design standards by adding a use in a third story space. Additionally, changing the courtyard to an outdoor living space use would eliminate the entry into the home and make no logical sense. The design submitted is by far the simplest, cleanest, and least obtrusive to the neighborhood. 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 41 5 degree as their surrounding neighbors, without negatively impacting those same neighbors. And, in fact, the Richardsons have the full support of their 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 relocate their existing rear deck for the primary purpose of accommodating their growing family. The family has owned this home since July 15, 2019. It appears likely that the deck was originally approved by the County prior to annexation, likely as part of the original construction, which would therefore make it a legal, nonconforming design. Given the smaller size of the parcel and large driveway turnaround required by the unique location 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. 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, shape, topography, and turnaround driveway 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, relocating the existing deck space to the rear of the property at the street level does not impact the view of any neighbor, and, as stated by several immediate 42 6 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 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 to maintain the existing deck at street level will make a significant impact to this family’s enjoyment of their home and resulting quality of life. Best Regards, Kendra L. Carney Mehr 43         ATTACHMENT “A”    44 45 46 Carney Mehr a legal corporation Aerial Images Report May 19, 2022 © 2008-2022 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749. Other Patents Pending. Measurements provided by www.eagleview.com www.eagleview.com/Guarantee.aspx An accuracy certificate is not available for this address due to image limitations. 361 Newport Glen Ct, Newport, CA 92660 Report Details Property Details Report Contents Report:46178232 Longitude = -117.8938627 Latitude = 33.6501925 Online map of property http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&gecode=&q= 361+Newport+Glen+Ct,Newport,CA,92660 Images…………………………1 Contact: Kendra Carney MehrCompany: Carney Mehr a legal corporation Address: 340 E 1st St #504 Tustin CA 92781-2200 Phone: 949-629-4676 47 361 Newport Glen Ct, Newport, CA 92660 May 19, 2022 Report: 46178232 © 2008-2022 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749. Other Patents Pending. Carney Mehr a legal corporation Page 1 Images The following aerial images show different angles of this structure for your reference. North Side South Side 48 361 Newport Glen Ct, Newport, CA 92660 May 19, 2022 Report: 46178232 © 2008-2022 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749. Other Patents Pending. Carney Mehr a legal corporation Page 2 East Side West Side 49 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE50 Attachment No. PC 3 Public Comments 51 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE52 53 54 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 55 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE56 Attachment No. PC 7 Attachment Name Attachment No. PC 4 Project Plans 57 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE58 59 60 61 62 63 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE64 Richardson Residence Variance Planning Commission January 19, 2023 Liz Westmoreland, Senior Planner Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Project Location 2 361 Newport Glen Ct. R-1-7,200 Zoning District Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Cul-de-sac Gated Entrance Accessway Subject Property Newport Glen Court CommunityPlannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Existing Conditions Existing Deck Existing Single- Family Residence 4 20’ 20’ Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Existing Deck 5 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Proposed Project Required Rear Setback (20’) Proposed Rear Setback (10 feet) 665 SF Addition + Deck Existing Residence 6 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Key Findings for Approval •Special or unique circumstances •Preservation and enjoyment of property rights •Not a special privilege •Not detrimental 7 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Unique Driveway Access 8 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) On-Site Turn Around 9 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Lot Coverage 10 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Compatibility 11 •Existing deck conversion •Increase height by ~10 feet from existing deck railing •Closest residence is 27 feet away •Mature trees •3 letters of support Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Alternatives Explored 12 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) Recommended Action •Conduct a public hearing; •Find the project exempt from CEQA •Adopt Resolution No. PC2023-006 approving the variance 13 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119) 14 Liz Westmoreland, Senior Planner 949-644-3234 lwestmoreland@newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission Public Hearing January 19, 2023 Plannig Commission - January 19, 2023 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Richardson Residence Variance (PA2020-119)