HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Chizhik Variance_PA2012-113CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 8, 2012 Meeting
Agenda Item 3
SUBJECT: Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
Variance No. VA2012 -005
LOCATION: 20361 Cypress Street
APPLICANT: Gennady and Marina Chizhik
PLANNER: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow existing hedges and block walls topped
with lattice panels, which exceed the Zoning Code height limits within setbacks (sides -
6 feet, front — 42 inches), to remain in place along both side property lines.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Variance No. VA2012 -005 with the attached
Findings and Conditions (Attachment No. PC 1).
1
2
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 2
LOCATION GENERAL
VICINITY MAP
t
Single -Unit Residential Detached
ON -SITE RS -D
Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7)
Residential E uestrian REQ
<. •. • 4p�O;,
- _ .. ,
Subject Propery
" c ° 20361 Cypress St !`�' , Adjacent property /northerly side ,• N {
�F B 20351 Cypress St.
(SP -7 , REO
Single-unit dwellings/equestrian
Mir
(SP -7 , REO
' Adjacent property/southerly side
�
f y 2 t *"
20371 C ypress St.
�y
Single-unit dwellings
General Commercial Office
WEST CO -G
C' A
Plant Nursery and Greenhouses
A �,•
_ f
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
Cf -G V.3 FAR m\'
- OSUSIAK AP71
"
P.
FF 5 wa
PD
ry a`
a fyPC 33
R- 1 -LGpr
PF
a
a n �1 oq �11 N, 4 e
SP.7 3Y yfi
PC"
o
ztm
aE' e"aJOS�
LOCATION GENERAL
I ZONING
CURRENT USE
Single -Unit Residential Detached
ON -SITE RS -D
Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7)
Residential E uestrian REQ
Single -unit dwelling
NORTH (RS-D)
(SP -7 , REO
Single-unit dwellings/equestrian
SOUTH 1 (RS -D)
(SP -7 , REO
Sin le -unit dwellin s/e uestrian
EAST RS -D
(SP-7), REQ
Single-unit dwellings
General Commercial Office
WEST CO -G
Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7)
Business Park BP
Plant Nursery and Greenhouses
3
11
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 3
Project Setting
The subject property is located on the west side of Cypress Street in the Residential
Equestrian (REQ) land use district within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7). It
is 19,800- square -feet in area, rectangular in shape (66 feet wide by 300 feet deep), and
similar in size and shape to neighboring properties along Cypress Street. Although
generally flat, the grade along the southerly side property line is lower than the adjacent
property (20371 Cypress Street), and the grade along the northerly side property line is
higher than the adjacent property (20351 Cypress Street). The front property line is
separated from Cypress Street (15 feet) by a portion of the equestrian trail located along
the west side of Cypress Street between Mesa and Orchard Drives. The property is
developed with a two -story, 7,687- square -foot, single - family home, and an 875- square-
foot detached, three -car garage located at the front of the property. The home was
constructed in 2010 and was subject to the standard setbacks for the REQ, which are:
front — 20 feet, sides — 5 feet, rear — 25 feet.
The properties adjacent to the side property lines have previously (pre- annexation)
been developed with single - family dwellings and various, accessory structures and "out-
buildings" associated with the keeping of horses and various domestic animals. Some of
the structures are located within the side and front setbacks and are higher than allowed
by the Zoning Code. The property abutting the rear property line is located within the
Business Park (BP) land use district and is developed as a commercial nursery. The
existing structures on that site consist of a commercial building at the front, various
accessory structures, and two greenhouses (near the rear property line).
Background
In 2009, prior to construction of the new home on the subject property, City building
permits were issued to the applicant to construct 6- foot -high block walls, centered on
the rear and side property lines, which is the maximum height allowed within rear and
side setbacks. The height of walls constructed complied with the height limits in effect at
that time and the permits were finaled in 2009.
During construction of the new home in 2010, the height of the property line block walls
was increased without permits; additionally, lattice panels (4 feet by 8 feet) were also
attached to portions of the block walls along the side property lines; and, finally, hedges
were planted adjacent to the block walls along a portion of the northerly side property
line and hedges and trees along the entire length of the southerly property line.
Subsequently, the trees have been allowed to grow together into a hedge (see
Attachment No. PC 3).
J
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 4
Although the REQ district regulations limit the height of walls to six feet within rear
setbacks, the BP land use district requires construction of a minimum 6- foot -high slump
block wall along property lines abutting the REQ district to provide a buffer between the
two districts. The height of the block wall at the rear property line was increased from six
to eight feet by the applicant without permits during construction of the new home.
Retention of the block wall at its current height is allowed by the Zoning Code; therefore,
approval of a variance is not needed. However, a revision to the original building permit
is required.
Project Description
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing hedges and block walls
topped with lattice panels, which exceed the Zoning Code height limits within setbacks
(sides — 6 feet, front — 42 inches), to remain in place along both side property lines. The
varying height of the block walls /lattice panels, and hedges requested are detailed in the
discussion below.
Analysis
Zoning Code
Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 20.30.040: (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining
Walls), the maximum height within setbacks are: front - 42 inches, side — 6 -feet, and
rear — 6 -feet. This section also requires that the maximum height be measured from the
existing grade where the wall or hedge is located. Because the block walls are centered
on the side property lines, the maximum height is measured from the lowest grade of
the two properties. The northerly side was measured from the adjacent property, which
has a lower natural grade, and the southerly side was measured from the subject
property, which has a lower natural grade than the adjacent property.
Section 20.30.130: (Traffic Safety Visibility Area) limits the height of walls, fences, and
hedges to 30 inches within 5 feet of an intersecting public right -of -way and a driveway.
The equestrian trail is considered a public right -of -way.
Front Setback
Northerly side property line
The 20- foot - front - setback is located along Cypress Street. The existing grade on the
adjacent property to the north is slightly lower than the subject property. As illustrated in
Table 1, the height of the block wall on the adjacent property exceeds the allowed
Zoning Code height of 42 inches by 4 inches, while the height on the subject property
NO
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 5
complies with code height limit; with the exception of the traffic safety visibility triangle,
which is 11 inches higher than allowed.
Southerly side property line
The maximum height of the block wall located in within the front setback on each
property exceeds the allowed Zoning Code height of 42 inches by 3 inches and 15
inches within the traffic safety visibility area. The applicant is requesting to retain the
height of the hedge, which is approximately 4 feet, 6 inches higher than allowed in the
front setback and 5 feet, 6 inches higher than allowed in the traffic safety visibility area.
Table 1: Front Setback — Maximum Heiaht Reauested (As Existinal
*Traffic safety visibility area (5 feet of an intersecting public right -of -way and a driveway)
Side Setbacks
Northerly Side Property Line
Side setbacks begin at the front setback line. The existing grade on the subject property
ranges between 1 foot and 2 feet higher than the existing grade on the adjacent
property. The maximum height of the block wall on the adjacent property ranges
between approximately 6 1/2 feet to approximately 7 1/2 feet. On the subject property,
the block wall height ranges between approximately 5 feet and 6 feet and complies with
the height allowed by the Zoning Code. The overall height of the block wall /lattice
panels ranges between approximately 9 feet and 10 feet on the adjacent property (lower
existing grade) and from 8 feet to 8 1/2 feet on the subject property. The hedges extend
from the 20- foot- setback approximately 57 linear feet to the northerly, front corner of the
existing home. The hedges in this area have been reduced to the height of the top of
the lattice panels.
AJ
Top of
Top of
Zoning Code
Location:
Block wall
Hedges/Trees
Standard
rounded up
rounded up
Northerly Side PL:
Subject Property
34" - 41"
34" - 41"
42 ", 30 "*
20361 Cypress St.
Adjacent Property
45" - 46"
N/A
«
20351 Cypress St.
Southerly Side PL:
Subject Property
40" - 45"
8'
«
20361 Cypress St.
Adjacent Property
40" — 45"
N/A
«
20371 Cypress St.
*Traffic safety visibility area (5 feet of an intersecting public right -of -way and a driveway)
Side Setbacks
Northerly Side Property Line
Side setbacks begin at the front setback line. The existing grade on the subject property
ranges between 1 foot and 2 feet higher than the existing grade on the adjacent
property. The maximum height of the block wall on the adjacent property ranges
between approximately 6 1/2 feet to approximately 7 1/2 feet. On the subject property,
the block wall height ranges between approximately 5 feet and 6 feet and complies with
the height allowed by the Zoning Code. The overall height of the block wall /lattice
panels ranges between approximately 9 feet and 10 feet on the adjacent property (lower
existing grade) and from 8 feet to 8 1/2 feet on the subject property. The hedges extend
from the 20- foot- setback approximately 57 linear feet to the northerly, front corner of the
existing home. The hedges in this area have been reduced to the height of the top of
the lattice panels.
AJ
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 6
Southerly Side Property Line
As illustrated in Table 3, the maximum height of the block wall along the southerly
property line ranges between approximately 6 feet and 7 feet, 6 inches on both
properties. This is due to the fact that, even though the existing grade on the subject
property is generally lower, the existing grade of the adjacent property is uneven and is
lower or equal to the subject property in some areas. The block wall increases in height
from the front of the property to the rear by stepping -up at various points along the side
property line, which correspond to the location of the existing, accessory structures and
"out- buildings" located in the side setbacks along the side property line of the adjacent
property (see Attachment PC 3 and PC 4).
Lattice panels have been attached to this block wall as well. The resulting overall height
of the block wall /lattice panels ranges between approximately 8 1/2 feet to
approximately 11 feet on the subject property.
The hedge adjacent to the block wall on the subject property side ranges in height
between approximately 8 1/2 feet to approximately 18 feet. The height of the hedge is
approximately equal to the top of the corresponding, adjacent lattice panels and steps -
up as the height of the lattice panels increases. The 18- foot -high area of the hedge is
approximately 8- feet - higher than the top of the corresponding, adjacent lattice panels. It
consists of the trees that have been allowed to grow into a hedge ( "tree /hedge ") and is
located facing the southerly side patio area and second floor balcony of the home and
extends to the rear property line.
Table 2: Side Setbacks — Maximum Heiaht Reauested (As Existinal
0
Top of
Top of
Top of
Zoning Code
Location
Block wall
Lattice
Hedges
Standard
rounded u
rounded u
Northerly Side PL
Subject Property
5'— 6'
8'- 8 1/s
8'- 8 1/]'
6'
20361 Cypress St.
Adjacent Propert y
6' /z' — 7 YZ
91-10,
N/A
6'
20351 Cypress St.
Southerly Side PL
Subject Property
6' — 7 1 /z'
81/2'— 11'
9' — 18'
6'
20361 Cypress St.
Adjacent Property
7' — 7 1/2'
8' 1/i - 10'
N/A
6'
(20371 Cypress St.)
0
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 7
Variance Findings
Pursuant to Section 20.52.090.E of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must
make the following findings before approving the aforementioned variance:
1. That 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.
2. That 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.
3. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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.
In addition to single family residential development, the REQ land use district permits
the keeping a limited number of horses, various other domestic farm animals, and dogs.
The side setbacks for this land use district are larger in area than those required for
most residential zoning districts within the City. The purpose of the larger setbacks is to
help prevent potential conflicts between properties developed with single family homes
and those developed with equestrian /and various agricultural uses. Although the
minimum required side setback is 5 feet, some of the structures on the adjacent
properties are located within the side setback (see Attachment PC 3). Some of the
structures are also exceed the 6- foot - height -limit allowed within the side setbacks and
the 42- inch - height -limit in the front setback.
The block walls originally built complied with the 6 foot maximum height allowed by the
Zoning Code, as measured from the lowest grade. During construction of the new
home, however, the applicant determined that it was necessary to increase the height of
the block walls and, subsequently, attach lattice panels and plant hedges to minimize
the related negative impacts of the uses and accessory structures on the adjacent
I
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 8
properties. The increased overall height of the block wall and lattice panels, and the
hedges will allow the applicant and any future owners to enjoy the use of the property
by creating a visual screen from the adjacent developments and provide a buffer from
the noise and dust. The block walls /lattice panels, and hedges are well designed and
should not prove detrimental to the adjacent neighbors or other persons in the vicinity.
The hedges and increased height of the block wall within the front setback area provide
privacy across the front of the property between the front property line, the horse trail,
and Cypress Street. However, the height of the hedge on the southerly side could
obstruct the view of vehicular, pedestrian, and /or equestrian traffic when exiting the
property.
With the exception of the request to retain the height of the hedge within the front
setback on the southerly side and the height of the approximately 18- foot -high
tree /hedge along the southerly side, (staff believes that the findings for approval of the
applicant's request for a variance can be made and supports this determination with the
facts outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment No. PC 1).
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's
request, subject to the conditions attached to the Resolution of Approval (Attachment
No. PC 1), which include lowering the height of the hedge located within the front
setback on the southerly property line to the height of the adjacent block wall, and within
the traffic safety site visibility area along both side property lines (first 5 feet) to 30
inches, and lowering the height of the 18- foot -high "tree /hedge" along the southerly side
to the height of the adjacent lattice panels.
Alternatives
Should the Planning Commission determine that the findings cannot be made for the
variance, as requested and recommended by staff, the Planning Commission may deny
the request or modify the approval by requiring any of the following: lowering the height
of the block wall(s), removing the lattice panels, lowering the height of the hedge(s),
trimming between the trees, or removal of some of the trees.
If the Planning Commission decides to deny any element of the project that staff
recommends for approval, the Planning Commission must identify findings for denial.
Should the Planning Commission take action on any alternatives, staff will return with a
revised resolution for consideration at the next available meeting.
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures). This project has been determined to be categorically
exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class
10
Chizhik Variance
November 8, 2012
Page 9
3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The project involves allowing
retention of block walls, lattice panels, hedges, and trees along the side property lines
that exceed the height permitted by the Zoning Code within the front, side, and rear
setbacks.
Public Notice
Notice of this application 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 prior to the decision date, 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:
0
Kay Sims, Assistant Planner
Submitted by:
r n a Wisnesl i, r CICP, Deputy Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution of Approval with Findings and Conditions
PC 2 Draft Resolution of Denial
PC 3 Photos /Correspondence Received
PC 4 Project plans
11
12
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution of Approval with
Findings and Conditions
13
14
RESOLUTION NO. ## ##
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VA2012 -005 FOR A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING HEDGES AND BLOCK
WALLS TOPPED WITH LATTICE PANELS, WHICH EXCEED
THE ZONING CODE HEIGHT LIMITS WITHIN SETBACKS
(SIDES — 6 FEET, FRONT — 42 INCHES), TO REMAIN IN PLACE
ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES LOCATED AT 20361
CYPRESS STREET (PA2012 -113)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Gennady and Marina Chizhik, with respect to property located
at 20361 Cypress Street and legally described as the Northeasterly one -half of Lot 158
Tract 706, requesting approval of a variance.
2. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing hedges and block walls
topped with lattice panels, which exceed the Zoning Code height limits within setbacks
(sides — 6 feet, front — 42 inches), to remain in place along the side property lines. On
the southerly side, the applicant requests that the hedge located within the southerly
side setbacks, and the hedge within the 20- foot -front setback be allowed to remain at
the existing height as indicated on the project plans.
3. The subject property is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, Residential
Equestrian land use district (SP -7, REQ) and the General Plan Land Use Element
category is Single -Unit residential Detached (RS -D).
4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. In 2009, prior to construction of the new home on the subject property, City building
permits were issued to the applicant to construct 6- foot -high block walls, centered on
the rear and side property lines, which is the maximum height allowed within rear and
side setbacks.
6. During construction of the new home, the height of the property line block walls was
increased without permits; additionally, lattice panels (4 feet by 8 feet) were also
attached to portions of the block walls along the side property lines; and hedges were
planted adjacent to the block walls along a portion of the northerly side property line
and hedges and trees, that have been allowed to grow together into a hedge
( "tree /hedge "), were planted along the entire length of the southerly side property line
7. A public hearing was held on November 8, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of
the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
15
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Paqe 2 of 8
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures.
2. The project involves allowing retention of block walls, lattice panels and hedges that
exceed the height permitted by the Zoning Code within the front, side, and rear
setbacks.
The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations
and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project
opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants
are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should
bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the
responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a
successful challenger.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.52.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following
findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. That 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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. Because the REQ land use district within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan allows
the keeping of a limited number of horses, various domestic farm animals, and dogs,
the Zoning Code requires larger side and rear setbacks than required within some
other single - family zoning districts within the City. The larger setbacks intended help to
minimize possible negative impacts related to those allowed uses on adjacent
properties.
A -2. The properties adjacent to the subject property have previously been developed (pre -
annexation) with single - family dwellings and various, existing accessory structures and
"out- buildings" associated with the keeping of horses and various domestic animals
and other uses.
10
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Paqe 3 of 8
A -3. The existing grade of the subject property along the northerly side property line ranges
between 1 foot and 2 feet higher than the existing grade on the adjacent property.
Since the maximum height of the block wall is measured from the existing grade, the
6- foot - block -wall originally constructed did not provide adequate privacy or minimize
the negative impacts related to the use and non - conforming structures located within
the side setback along the side property line on the adjacent property (20351
Cypress).
A -4. The subject property is lower in existing grade than the adjacent property (20371
Cypress) along the southerly side property line. The existing grade on the adjacent
property is uneven and is more than 1- foot - higher than the subject property in some
areas. There are various, existing accessory structures located within the side
setbacks along the side property. Some of the structures are higher than the 6 -foot-
height limit allowed by the Zoning Code.
Finding:
B. That 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.
Fact in Support of Finding:
B -1. Strict compliance of the Zoning Code would require that the block walls, lattice panels,
and hedges be removed or reduced to a maximum height of 6 feet within the side and
rear setbacks and 42 inches within the front setback. Neither of these requirements
would allow the opportunity to establish a sufficient barrier between the subject
property and the adjacent neighbors, which would adequately address the issue of
privacy and concerns regarding noise and dust related to the uses of the neighboring
properties. The existing height of the block walls /lattice panels, and hedges have
proven beneficial in addressing these concerns.
B -2. The negative impacts resulting from strict compliance with the Zoning Code would
deprive the owner and any future owner of the enhanced aesthetics and privacy the
enjoyed by other properties located within the vicinity and throughout the City.
B -3. Many of the properties in the vicinity have previously (pre- annexation) been developed
with walls and hedges that are located along the side property lines similar in height as
those requested with the variance. Those walls and hedges have not proven to be
detrimental to adjacent neighbors or other persons in the vicinity.
B -4. The existing block walls /lattice panels, and hedges are well designed and should not
prove detrimental to the adjacent neighbors or other persons in the vicinity.
17
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Paqe 4 of 8
Finding:
C. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Fact in Support of Finding:
C -1. Allowing for the increased height of the block walls /lattice panels, and hedges will
assist in alleviating the negative impacts and concerns on the subject property related
to the uses and location of the existing accessory structures and "out- buildings" on the
adjacent properties. This will afford a higher level of enjoyment and use of the subject
property by the applicant or future property owners, which is consistent with the intent
of the Zoning Code to promote the orderly growth and development of the City, to
promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, to
protect the character and social and economic vitality of all districts within the City, and
to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.
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:
D -1. Granting the variance request will preserve the applicant's right to enjoy a level of
privacy comparable to other properties within the SP -REQ District and does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other
properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Findinq:
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:
E -1. The existing block walls /lattice panels, and hedges are well designed and should not
prove detrimental to the adjacent neighbors or other persons in the vicinity.
E -2. As conditioned, all changes to the originally constructed block walls must be approved by
the Building Department and new building permits reflecting the changes must be issued.
M
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Paqe 5 of 8
E -3 As conditioned, the reduction of the 18 -foot high hedge to a maximum height equal to the
top of the adjacent lattice panels will ensure adequate light and air for the neighboring
property.
E -4. As conditioned, reducing the height of the hedge on the southerly side property line to 30
inches within the 5- foot - traffic- safety - visiblility -area required by the Municipal Code and to
the height of the existing, adjacent block wall within the remaining 15 feet of the front
setback, will increase visibility of the equestrian trail and Cypress Street when exiting
property.
Finding:
F. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of Section
20.52.090 of the Zoning Code, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable
specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. The granting of this variance will not conflict with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, which designates the site for Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) use, or
the Zoning Code, which designates the site as located within the Residential
Equestrian land use district (REQ) of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7). The
block walls /lattice panels and hedges are accessory to the dwelling unit and are
therefore consistent with these designations and will not change the use of the
property.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance
Permit No. VA2012 -005, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached
hereto and incorporated by reference.
2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution 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.
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. # # ##
Paqe 6 of 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN
ABSENT:
BY:
Michael Toerge, Chairman
BY:
Fred Ameri, Secretary
M
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Paqe 7 of 8
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped
and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of
approval.)
2. VA2012 -005 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an
extension is otherwise granted.
3. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
4. Within 60 days after the effective date of the action for Variance No. VA2012 -005, the
property owner or an authorized representative shall either reduce or remove the
hedge within the front setback on the southerly side property line to the height of the
existing block wall in that area.
5. Within 60 days after the effective date of the action for Variance No. VA2012 -005, the
property owner or authorized representative shall either remove or reduce the height of
the block walls and hedges within the first 5 -feet along the side property lines to a height
of 30 inches as required by Section 20.30.130: Traffic Safety Visibility Area of the
Municipal Code. The reduction in height shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Traffic Engineer.
6. Within 60 days after the effective date of the action for Variance No VA2012 -005, the
property owner or an authorized representative shall either reduce or remove the
additions to the block wall /and or lattice panels or obtain a building permit for the as-
built rear and side property line walls from the City's Building Division of the Community
Development Department. The construction plans for the as -built walls must comply with
the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code.
7. Within 60 days after the effective date of the action for Variance No. 2012 -005, the
property owner or authorized representative shall reduce the height of the hedge row
along the southerly property to the height of the top of the block wall /lattice. Trees higher
that the top of lattice are allowed within the side setback areas as long as the they don't
become a hedge as defined in the zoning code.
8. 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.
9. 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,
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Paqe 8 of 8
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 the Chizhik Variance including, but not limited to, the
VA2012 -005 (PA2012 -113). 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.
22
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution of Denial
23
24
RESOLUTION NO. ## ##
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING A REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE NO. VA2012 -005 TO ALLOW EXISTING HEDGES
AND BLOCK WALLS TOPPED WITH LATTICE PANELS, WHICH
EXCEED THE ZONING CODE HEIGHT LIMITS WITHIN
SETBACKS (SIDES — 6 FEET, FRONT — 42 INCHES), TO
REMAIN IN PLACE ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES
LOCATED AT 20361 CYPRESS STREET (PA2012 -113)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Gennady and Marina Chizhik, with respect to property located
at 20361 Cypress Street and legally described as the Northeasterly one -half of Lot 158
Tract 706, requesting approval of a variance.
2. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing hedges and block walls
topped with lattice panels, which exceed the Zoning Code height limits within setbacks
(sides — 6 feet, front — 42 inches), to remain in place along the side property lines. On
the southerly side, the applicant requests that the hedge located within the southerly
side and rear setbacks, and the hedge within the 20- foot -front setback be allowed to
remain at the existing height as indicated on the project plans.
3. The subject property is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, Residential
Equestrian land use district (SP -7, REQ) and the General Plan Land Use Element
category is Single -Unit residential Detached (RS -D).
4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. In 2009, prior to construction of the new home on the subject property, City building
permits were issued to the applicant to construct 6- foot -high block walls, centered on
the rear and side property lines, which is the maximum height allowed within side
setbacks.
6. During construction of the new home, the height of the property line block walls was
increased without permits; additionally, lattice panels (4 feet by 8 feet) were also
attached to portions of the block walls along the side property lines; and hedges were
planted adjacent to the block walls along a portion of the northerly side property line
and hedges and trees, that have been allowed to grow together into a hedge
( "tree /hedge "), were planted along the entire length of the southerly side property line
7. A public hearing was held on November 8, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of
the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. # # ##
Paqe 2 of 3
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
The Planning Commission may approve a variance application only after making each of the
required findings set forth in Section 20.52.090: (Variances) of the Municipal Code. In this
case, the Planning Commission denied the variance application for the following:
1. Although the walls are existing and have not proven detrimental to the property or
neighborhood, their existence does not set a precedent for approval of the proposed
variance. Furthermore, they are neither required by code or necessary for the enjoyment
of a substantial property right.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies VA2012 -005,
hereby denies the application.
2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution 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 8 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
20
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Paqe 3 of 3
BY:
Michael Toerge, Chairman
mm
Fred Ameri, Secretary
22
Attachment No. PC 3
Photos and Correspondence Received
29
30
ili&.
Front setback wall and hedge to
be reduced to 30- inches in sight
distance area (northerly side)
31
S2
33
S4
so
S7
S2
7
9
vy I 1 v
IN
/Southerly wall /lattice /18 foot
hedge from 2 "d floor
I
ra
-o
42
09/27/2012
1'
.� F`f
r - -iZL
I1I
wQ9/27/2012
Ca'
I have no objections to the height of the constructed wall, including trellis and planted trees located at
20361 SW Cypress, Newport Beach, CA 92660. They are beneficial to both my neighbor and 1 in
minimizing airplane noise, absorbing dust, and ensuring privacy.
Name: Date: /O -/ V- /L
=_,
Address: �4ts / fcv G'Y�2�Ss
qfOSIVED 8y
- OMMUNITV
or 162012
DEVELOPMENT vZ`
�y 0'P
Op NE -WPOR'
Ilrf
:'lw
Attachment No. PC 4
Project Plans
4j
42
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
N i
W
9-I
VI
N
I
M
NI
SECTION A -A
NOT TO SCALE
ELEVATIONS
STA.
N.G. SV'LY
N.G. NE'LY
T.W.
LATTICE
HEDGE
D +00
61.0
60.6
64.41
,0
64.41
D +20
61.6
60.7
64.41 67.04
69.64
69.64
1 +00
61.6
60.2
67.00
69.62
69.62
2 +00
61.9
59.8
67.01
69.60
69.60
3 +00
61.3
59.5
67.07
69.62
69.62
E
m
x
m
c
5
Z
c�
00 SECTION B -B
NOT TO SCALE
ELEVATIONS
67
66
65
W 3f
w0
W
m
U I-
3 O U
N p..
w
M Z
N
N
STA.
N.G. SWLY
N.G. NE PLY
T.W.
LATTICE
TREE
HEDGE
0 +00
61.3
61.3
65.03
.0
69.5
0 +20
61.7
61.7
65.02 67.68
70.30
70.3
0 +77
62.3
61.7
67.69
70.29
70.3
68.34
70.91
1 +12
61.5
61.7
68.34
68.97
70.96
70.5
1 +16
61.5
61.7
68.97
70.63
78.5
2 +00
62.8
61.5
68.97
71.61
79.5
3 +00
61.9
61.6
68.96
71.60
78.6
LAI,
64 �pRE U�
SCALE : �o �P o
HORIZ. 1"= 10'�2?r'r
VERT. 1 " =1',�
63 ' ofc�et�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
WALL PROFILE
20361 SW CYPRESS ST MEWPORT BEACH, CA.
CHECKED DATE OF SURVEY: 10 -04 -2012 DATE
10/31/12
DESIGNED
DRAWN
SHEET 1 OF 1'
49
ADDITIONAL
MATERIALS
RECEIVED
ChizhikVariance
20363. Cypress Street
Planning Commission
Public hearing
November 8, 2012
t.20361 bject Propery
... Cypress St.
M Adjacent propertylsovtherty side
r 20371 Cypress St.
-
m-Y r
r
Al
Adjacent propertyrnortherly side
20351 Cypress St.
t ^`a�
❑An n1it!
Variance :
III
\-3W.
afterldr•
to retain existing block walls /lattice /hedges -
located along both side property lines
exceed height limits allowed in front and side setbacks
Recommendation:
approval with conditions to -
front setback - lower height of hedges to height of adjacent
walls
traffic safety area (first 5 feet) lower height of walls /hedges
to 30 inches
southerly side setback lower height of 18 foot hedge to
height of adjacent lattice
3
7!
Northerly side — 20351
Cypress
'i
Horse trail /Cypress Street
rte,
----------
a�.
n
j a. we
-M �y ------- '^
1t.�e[ rwd. YYiex
Lj
----- --------- --- -- - --- - ------ - -- - - -- t - -- --
; L-
Southerly side — 20371 Cypress
4
.-
Front Setback (northerly side) —
wall /hedge to be reduced to 30
inches /first 5 feet
Ah
0
•1991•
•
Front Setback (southerly side) —
wall /hedge to be reduced to 30
inches /first 5 feet
�S 2
7
i M
Northerly side — 20351
Cypress
I
T
7
=J_
Horse trail /Cypress Street
yp
4M j
1.
Southerly side — 20371 Cypress
- -ffm li
P Photonranhs
3: A Me reTaTErs
Northerly side -
wall /lattice
,,, I.(ii
N
MW
7!
Northerly side — 20351
Cypress
T
7
=J_
Horse trail /Cypress Street
Southerly side — 20371 Cypress
s�
3: A Me reTaTErs
Southerly side
wall /lattice /18 foot hedge
ii
,,, I.(ii
Uil
Southerly side
wall /lattice /hedge
12
Site Photographs
r.
f f .
09127/2012
Southerly side from 2nd floor -
wall /lattice /18 foot hedge
I
LI
�4
Site Photographs
�1
r.
09127%2012
Site Photograph
a T�
Y
S y
a-
)9/27/2012
SEW �T
u
�CIFO PN�'
1
For more information contact:
Kay Sims
949-644-3237
ksims@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
e Plan w
I
20361 SW Cypress
Request for Variance
South Side — 20371 Cypress
View of adjacent property, prior to lattice
& trees
South Side — 20371 Cypress
View after lattice and planting of trees
_ h
South Side — 20371 Cypress
View of adjacent property, prior to lattice
& trees
South Side — 20371 Cypress
View of adjacent property
W
South Side — 20371 Cypress
View of adjacent property during
construction of our home
lit
South Side — 20371 Cypress
Objects hanging down from adjacent
property into our backyard
South Side
Present -day View
South Side - 20371 SW Cypress
Trailer in adjacent yard which caught on
fire
r 4
� � 1
f �. Fm 1 4 l•r� � ".r
R
7 to
a '
South Side — 20371 Cypress
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � ♦i ♦� ♦�1
� ♦• ♦1 � � � ♦ ♦ � ♦♦ • ♦♦ 1 1 v
ww- ,J A_ 1
1,
• - .� °ail *5+\i ,y�`Lx lF`A• w�;l�..'•p �..
,J
Front Set -Back on North Side
Present -day
Front Set -Back South Side
.F r -�
� r `r
i .. ��
'� � i .
�:�� �� - _
r':
/ ^. '
i� � i..
.f
@:.
_� P
- i
' 4s .;;
Horse Trail North — South Side Front
of Property
Present -day
To:
Subject:
PLANNING_ COMMISSION
Additonal Materials Received
Item No. 3a: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
From: Tim Stoaks [ mailto :timstoaks(a)sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:47 PM
To: Brandt, Kim
Cc: Gary Hall; Gary Golson; Jayne ]ones; Loren Blackwood; Mary Slouka; Richard Dayton;
Richard Moriarty
Subject: 20361 SW Cypress Street -Deny application for variance
RE:
ITEM NO. 3 Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
Site Location: 20361 SW Cypress Street
Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow existing hedges and block walls topped with
lattice panels, which exceed the Zoning Code height limits within setbacks (sides — 6 feet, front
— 42 inches), to remain in place along the side property lines.
Planning Commission
I urge you to deny the application for variance allowing block wall and Lattice panels
which were constructed indirect conflict to the SAH specific plan. the Specific Plan is
the work of a great many folks that served to develop the specific plan for Santa Ana Heights
via the SAHPAC. These regulations were vetted with much community out reach, meetings
and input from design and architectural sub committees that were part of the SAHPAC. The
requirement are consistent with the established character of both the SAH Business Park and
the Residential areas.
As the former Chairman of the SAHPAC, this is not the first application that has been
requested. Before the sunsetting of the SAHPAC the Architectural sub committee has written
comment that this type of variance greatly affects the larger sites and that with the
mansionising of the sites along Cypress and Mesa Dr. would negatively impact the aesthetic of
the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Tim Stoaks
•77i"iLai.9G171�GC�Z�lif1 M
2181 Mesa Dr
Newport Beach Ca 93660
CC:SAHPAC
To: PLANNING_ COMMISSION
Subject: Additonal Materials Received
Item 3b: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission — November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
From: cashwho(@aol.com [mailto:cashwhoaaol.coml
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:30 PM
To: Brandt, Kim
Subject: 20361 SW Cypress Street -Deny application for variance
ITEM NO. 3 Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
Site Location: 20361 SW Cypress Street
Summary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow existing hedges and block walls topped with lattice panels, which
exceed the Zoning Code height limits within setbacks (sides — 6 feet. front — 42 inches), to remain in place along
the side property lines.
Dear Planning Commission
I own the property at 20341 Cypress and can see this monstrousity of a wall in question from my property. I feel
for my neighbor whose property abuts this wall. Even the block wall itself is more than six feet, then add the
lattice and plantings and the result is more than just unsightly. My neighbors back yard looks like a racquetball
court with this huge unsightly block wall. I witnessed how the yard at 20361 was filled in with dirt to raise the
original grade of this property which resulted in such a high wall on the neighboring property. I urge you to deny
the application for the variance allowing the block wall and lattice panels that do not comply with the SAH specific
plan guidelines. Additionally, the fencing along the property line in front also blocks the view of the multi purpose
trail making access from the driveway unsafe.
These improvements are not allowed and should not be granted a variance to continue. If you grant this variance
to this property, then will I be allowed to do the same on my property? If that were to occur, the property owner at
20351 would have 10 foot walls on each side of his property. Is that truly something that we should allow to
happen to anyone?
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Holly Jarvis
20341 Cypress Street
To: PLANNING_ COMMISSION
Subject: Additional Materials Received
Item No. 3c: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
From: Alyson Michie [ mailto:gallomichie @hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:43 PM
To: Brandt, Kim
Subject: 20361 SW Cypress Street
To Whom it May Concern: I live right across the street at 20362 SW Cypress Street. I take
issue with the height Mr Gennady & Mrs Marina Chizhik have in mind for their property located
at 20361 SW Cypress Street. My objection is; it is not in accordance with our height limit of 6
feet and begins a process in the break down of a friendly neighborhood. My vote is no to their
desire for an adjustment to height limitation. Best regards, Alyson
To: PLANNING_ COMMISSION
Subject: Additional Materials Received
Item No. 3d: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
From: Dirt Loving rmailto:dirtlovino(cbomail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 4:09 PM
To: Brandt, Kim
Subject: ITEM NO. 3 Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
At First Blush, I lean towards allowing people do what they want with their own property, unti
affects others. I feel that is clearly the case, in this situation. Obviously the underlying block
wall exceeds height restrictions set forth by City of Newport AND the County of Orange, and
the attached lattice makes the violation even greater. Not only is it illegal & unattractive, it
deprives neighbors of the wonderful ocean breezes we are privileged to enjoy in this area &
which they did previously enjoy prior to the building of this wall.
It is my firm position that this fence should adhere to the maximum of six feet in height, and its
measurement, per the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, "shall be measured from the
existina grade prior to construction at the location where the fence, hedge, or wall is located."
Since many tons of fill were brought in to artificially raise the grade, it would require a much
shorter fence than what currently stands. As a building contractor, Mr. Chizhik knew, yet
flagrantly disregarded these height restrictions and for this reason alone, the variance should
be denied.
Moreover, if the Chizhik's did not like the rural /equestrian nature of this neighborhood, or the
noise of the airport, they should not have purchased, and then built a home here. As it took
two years (plus an additional year, prior to construction) to build this home, they were VERY
well aware of the airport & dust, long before they moved in. We all have the right to choose
where to live. If we don't like the dirt of a rural neighborhood & the noise of an adjacent airport,
perhaps one should choose a different location to build a home...
Please simply enforce the existing height limitations on residential fences & walls and do not
grant a variance for this property.
Most Sincerely,
G. Stout
To: PLANNING_ COMMISSION
Subject: Additional Materials Received
Item 3e: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
From: Emily Vogler [mailto:emilvcv @ roadrunner.coml
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:12 PM
To: Brandt, Kim; Dept - City Council
Cc: iahall(cbfea.net; cakenoie(cbmac.com; bkbavcuvee(cbsbcalobal.net; wwfwmbldsCcbaol.com; rdavton0juno.com;
ggqolson(cbhotmail.com; nbvineyardsCaladelphia.net; Barbara Venezia; timstoaks(cbsbcglobal.net
Subject: 20361 SW Cypress Street -Deny application for variance
no
ITEM NO. 3 Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
Site Location: 20361 SW Cypress Street
Summary:
I object to granting this variance because my property has suffered from a similar situation where a neighboring
property owner erected an oversize fence that was later approved by Newport Beach despite objections from me
and many longtime property owners and residents because such fences adversely impact neighboring properties.
I look at the 12 foot tall cement block wall bordering my yard and its prison yard ambiance every morning, thanks
to the city of Newport Beach and its ignoring un- permitted landfill on the neighboring property and the oversize
fence built on it, and while the subject wall has some landscaping to soften the effect, it still hems in the adjacent
properties. The specific plan of our neighborhood was established with much input and consideration of the
residents and allowing new construction to impose towering walls on neighboring homes is to neglect the
aesthetic of the neighborhood. I have a question for the city council- are such tall walls allowed in other city
neighborhoods? I have other properties in Newport Beach and do not see such imposing fencing separating
homes in other areas of the city.
Emily Crean Vogler
Emily Vogler
emilvcv @roadrunner.com
Item No. 3f: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
I have no objections to the height of the constructed wall, including trellis and planted trees located at
20361 SW Cypress, Newport Beach, CA 92660. They are beneficial to both my neighbor and I in
minimizing airplane noise, absorbing dust, and ensuring privacy.
Name: Date:
ILE ( ✓
Signature:
° e A V�—�
Address: 2,e �; S�Z C--;��191'?C 9
"61 C q`L. Ga
`s2,U
(,- ( -7zo!2
Item No. 3f: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
I have no objections to the height of the constructed wall, including trellis and planted trees located at
20361 SW Cypress, Newport Beach, CA 92660. They are beneficial to both my neighbor and I in
minimizing airplane noise, absorbing dust, and ensuring privacy.
Name: & �/
Signature:
Address:
Date: L
I have no objections to the height of the constructed wall, including trellis and planted trees located at
203615W Cypress, Newport Beach, CA 92660. They are beneficial to both my neighbor and I in
minimizing airplane noise, absorbing dust, and ensuring privacy.
Name:
Address:
iL X ��.
Date: l/ 7
Item No. 3f: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
To: PLANNING_ COMMISSION
Subject: Additional Materials Received
Item No. 3g: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
From: Clifford N Gibran [ mailto :cliffordngibran @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:08 PM
To: Brandt, Kim
Subject: ITEM NO. 3 Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
I think ANY building contractor, especially one that has done work for the City of Newport Beach, should be held
to a "higher standard" when it comes to adhering to building and zoning regulations. Everyone knows fences of
this height are not allowed in residential areas. However, this contractor chose to ignore building /zoning
regulations and build what they wanted. Clearly he felt the rules did not apply to him.
It is HIGHLY UNacceptable for illegal construction activity to be ultimately REWARDED with a permit! What sort
of message does this send?
Any action OTHER than DENYING these homeowners "permission" for their illegal actions would be a clear
indicator of preferential treatment by the City of Newport Beach.
Most Sincerely,
CM Stout
Neighborhood resident
Item No. 3h: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
1 have no objections to the height of the constructed wall, including trellis and planted trees located at
20361 SW Cypress, Newport Beach, CA 92660. They are beneficial to both my neighbor and I in
minimizing airplane noise, absorbing dust, and ensuring privacy.
Name: Aj2�e,2 Fed i .
Si}O.(p.1 RIO, [
Signature: T
ktui OwheyS afii
Address:
A)'QWr0T+ (746p
We
Date: / 'to /,>,
�GEIVED AV
P
WMMOW-v
of 0 q M?.
pEVE�OPMENT �UZ
car OF NEWF000
Item No. 3i: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
Presented by Applicant During Public Comments
s
i
,
Item No. 3i: Additional Materials Received
Planning Commission November 8, 2012
Chizhik Variance (PA2012 -113)
Presented by Applicant During Public Comments
i