HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Netherton Residence_PA2011-016CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 17, 2011 Meeting
Agenda Item 3
SUBJECT: Netherton Residence - (PA2011 -016)
78 Royal Saint George Road
■ Variance No. VA2011 -003
APPLICANT: Laurence M. Netherton
PLANNER: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
(949) 644 -3235; PAlfordO- newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The application is for a variance to allow a wall, up to 6 feet 8 inches in height, to be
constructed within the 10 -foot "streetside" side setback where the maximum height for
walls, fences and hedges is limited to three (3) feet.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Variance No. VA2011 -003 (Attachment No.
PC1).
��
Af
Netherton Residence
February 17, 2011
Page 2
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
ON -SITE
Single -Unit Residential
Detached RS -D
Big Canyon Planned
Community
Single -unit residential
NORTH
RS -D
PC -8
Sin le -unit residential
SOUTH
RS -D
PC -8
Single-unit residential
EAST
RS -D
PC -8
Single-unit residential
WEST
RS -D
PC -8
Single-unit residential
Netherton Residence
February 17, 2011
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The subject property is a 10,787- square -foot lot located within the Area 12 (Low Density
Residential) of the Big Canyon Planned Community District. The subject property is
relatively flat and is currently developed with a one -story, 2,886- square -foot single -unit
dwelling. Vehicular access is currently via Royal Saint James Road. The adjacent lots
are developed with similar one and two -story, single -unit dwellings.
The applicant is currently in plan check for a remodel involving the demolition of the
existing three - vehicle garage, additions totaling 1,010 square feet, a new three - vehicle
garage, and new planters, retaining walls, and privacy walls. The remodel includes the
closing of the existing driveway on Royal Saint George Road and the construction of a
new driveway on Hillcrest Lane.
Project Description
The applicant is requesting a variance to modify the Big Canyon Planned Community
District standards relating to the height of walls, fences, and hedges to allow the
construction of a new 5- foot -2 -inch concrete block wall, approximately seventy -one feet
in length, in the streetside (eastern) side setback area. The Big Canyon Planned
Community District Regulations (PC text) allows walls, fences, and hedges up to eight
(8) feet in height, except in areas within ten (10) feet of front or streetside property lines,
where they are limited to a height of three (3) feet.
DISCUSSION
A variance is a request to waive or modify certain standards when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings,
topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development
standards otherwise applicable to the property 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 do otherwise would constitute a grant of
special privileges that is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties.
The Canyon Hills Community Association approved the wall with a maximum height of 6 feet 8 inches,
measured from the sidewalk. The PC text is silent on the method of measuring the height of walls;
therefore, the methodology defaults to the Zoning Code, where the height of a fence, hedge, or wall is
measured from the lowest existing grade at the location where the fence, hedge, or wall is located. The
proposed plan depicts the wall with a height of 5 feet 2 inches from existing grade.
Netherton Residence
February 17, 2011
Page 4
Analysis
The applicant states that the variance is justified due to the unique orientation of the lot;
that the lot is irregular in shape with a deep concave curvature form the bulb of the
Hillcrest Lane cul -de -sac; and that this configuration results in an unusual site plan that
places private outdoor space adjacent to the street. The applicant states that limiting
the wall to the maximum height of three (3) feet or constructing the wall outside of the
10 -foot streetside setback area would deny the property the use of private outdoor living
space enjoyed by other properties in Big Canyon (see Attachment PC2).
A review of the modification permits in the immediate vicinity of the project site indicates
that site planning on the corner lots has been problematic over the years:
• 70 Hillcrest - Modification Permit No. 810 allowed a 6- foot -high wall to encroach
3 feet 6 inches into the corner clear triangle (06/18/74).
• 70 Hillcrest - Modification Permit No. 3626 allowed an addition to the dwelling at
to encroach 4 feet 6 inches into the 15 -foot rear setback. The Modifications
Committee found that the encroachment was a reasonable design solution to an
irregularly- shaped lot (11/21/89).
• 31 Augusta - Modification Permit No. 3962 allowed a 6- foot -high wall to encroach
ten (10) feet into the 10 -foot streetside setbacks. The wall replaced an existing
6- foot -high fence built by the developer (01/23/92).
• 22 Cypress Point — Modification Permit No. 3509 allowed new 7- foot -high entry
gates and an as -built 6- foot -high fence to encroach into the 10 -foot streetside
setbacks (04/11/89).
It should be noted that this application requires a variance because there is now a limit
on the amount of deviation to development standards that can be approved with a
modification permit. Since the adoption of the current Zoning Code in October 2010,
modifications are limited to not more than a ten (10) percent deviation on certain
development standards, including the height of fences, hedges, and walls.
Each modification permit or variance request is unique and reviewed against the
characteristics of each subject property. Therefore, approval of a modification permit or
variance does not establish a precedent for future requests. Furthermore, the findings
required to approve a modification permit are different from those for a variance,
particularly for modification permits approved prior to 2005. However, this history of
modification permit applications does support the contention that shape of the subject
corner lot may constitute special circumstances that result in additional constraints that
are not applicable other properties in the Big Canyon Planned Community.
Netherton Residence
February 17, 2011
Page 5
Section 20.52.090.E of the Zoning Code, requires the Planning Commission to make
the following findings before approving a variance:
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.
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.
C. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
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.
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.
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.
Staff concludes that there are facts associated with the subject property that support the
required findings. The lot is triangular in shape with a rounded corner, which is different
from interior and corner lots in the vicinity. This lot configuration limits the amount of
private outdoor space on the property. Strict compliance with the height and setback
requirements for fences, hedges, and walls would significantly limit the usability of this
limited outdoor space, thus denying the property owner of a substantial property right.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed design and location of the
wall and does not foresee any sight- distance or other public safety issues.
The proposed wall will feature pilasters and decorative caps and will be treated with
stucco to match the exterior of the dwelling unit. Therefore, the proposed wall will be
compatible with the existing development in the Big Canyon Planned Community.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No
VA2011 -003 based on the discussion and facts above and the recommended conditions
of approval that have been incorporated into the attached Resolution and Exhibit
(Attachment No. PC1).
Netherton Residence
February 17, 2011
Page 6
Alternatives
The Planning Commission may deny the variance application.
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property, and posted at the site a minimum of ten (10) days in advance
of this hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared
upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City
website.
Prepared and Submitted by:
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
PC 2 Statement of Proposed Project
PC 3 Project plans
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO.
VA2011 -003 TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT
LIMIT IN A SIDE SETBACK AREA AT 78 ROYAL SAINT
GEORGE ROAD (PA2011 -016)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Laurence M. Netherton, with respect to the property located
at 78 Royal Saint George Road, and legally described as Lot 30 of Tract 7223 requesting
approval of a variance.
2. The applicant proposes a variance to allow a wall, up to 6 feet 8- inches in height, to be
constructed within the 10 -foot "streetside" side setback where the maximum height for
walls, fences and hedges is limited to three (3) feet.
3. The subject property is located within the Big Canyon Planned Community (PC -8) Zoning
District 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. A public hearing was held on February 17, 2011, 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. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The exemption includes the
addition of accessory structures to an existing structure.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.52.090.E 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)
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 2 of 6
that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning
classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The subject property is a 10,787- square -foot lot located within the Area 12 (Low
Density Residential) of the Big Canyon Planned Community District.
A -2. The subject property is triangular in shape with a rounded corner, which is different
from interior and other corner lots in the vicinity.
A -3. The lot configuration limits the amount of private outdoor space on the subject
property.
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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. Strict compliance with the Big Canyon Planned Community District Regulations' 3 foot
height limit for fences, hedges, and walls and the 10 -foot streetside setback would
significantly limit the usability of the limited outdoor space on the subject property.
B -2. Significantly limiting the usability of the limited outdoor space on the subject property
would deny the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under Big Canyon Planned Community District.
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:
C -1. The granting of the Variance would allow the construction of a privacy wall in a
location and of a height sufficient to allow the property enjoyment of the limited outdoor
space on the subject property.
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.
Tmpit: 04/14/10
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 6
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The granting of the Variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the Big Canyon Planned Community as it
allows the property owner to maintain parity with the usable outdoor space enjoyed by
nearby properties.
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 proposed design and location of the wall does not interfere with the provision of
safe sight distances.
E -2. The proposed wall will feature pilasters and decorative caps and will be treated with
stucco to match the exterior of the dwelling unit, which will be compatible with the
existing development in the Big Canyon Planned Community.
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:
F -1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property Single -
Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). The RS -D land use designation is intended to
provide for a range of detached single - family residential dwelling units on a single legal
lot.
F -2. The subject property is located within the Area 12 of the Big Canyon Planned
Community District, which is intended for low density residential development.
F -3. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area.
F -4. The granting of the Variance would allow the construction of accessory structure to an
existing single -unit detached dwelling unit, which is consistent with the RS -D land use
designation and Area 12 of the Big Canyon Planned Community District.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance No.
VA2011 -003, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
Tmplt: 04/14/10
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 4 of 6
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 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011.
AYE=S:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
I; MT
Earl McDaniel, Chairman
Michael Toerge, Secretary
Tmpit: 04/14110
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project- specific conditions are in italics)
PLANNING
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. Variance No. VA2011 -003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date
of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 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. 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 Use
Permit.
5. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and
of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a
precedent for future approvals or decisions.
6. This Variance may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning
Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which
it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or
materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is
operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
7. 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
Department.
8. 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 the Netherton Residence including, but not limited to,
the Variance No. VA2011 -003. 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
Tmplt: 04/14/10
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 6 of 6
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.
9. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the Building Division of the
Community Development Department. The construction plans must comply with the most
recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code.
Tmptt: 04/14/10
Attachment No. PC 2
Statement of Proposed Project
Correspondence
Laurence& Cynthia Netherton Item No. 3a
2004 Yacht Vigilant Netherton Residence
Newport Beach CA 92660 PA2011 -016
(949) 720 -1514
February 2, 2011
Mr. Patrick Alford
Planning Manager
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Netherton Residence
78 Royal Saint George
APN: 442 - 131 -03
Dear Mr. Alford:
This is an application for a variance from the privacy wall setback - local street - as described in
Section V. (D) of the Planned Community District Regulations, Big Canyon Amendment No. 4,
City of Newport Beach, January 1981, as subsequently amended.
The subject of this application is the location of a proposed privacy wall at the above captioned
property, which is located at the corner of Royal Saint George and Hillerest in Big Canyon. The
wall is proposed within ten feet of the property line.
The justifications for the request are:
The orientation of the lot is unique in Big Canyon: it has an irregular shape with a deep
concave curvature formed by the cul -de -sac bulb.' This shape creates an unusual site plan
that exposes to the street those yard areas that are private spaces in on other lots.
• The proposed design is consistent with other conventional shaped lots throughout the
community and been designed to enhance an otherwise inconsistent streetseape and
aesthetically unappealing appearance in the property's current condition.
'I believe there is only one other with the same configuration, at 10 Royal Saint George Road.
The house does not appear to have been changed from its original configuration.
The proposed location of the wall would deny use of private outdoor space enjoyed by
other properties.
• The granting of the variance would not be inconsistent with other properties in the
vicinity.
• The wall is part of a major remodel of an original home that would enhance the
neighborhood.
The plans for the wall and associated remodel have been approved by the Big Canyon
Homeowners Association (Attachment 1).
The plans were submitted on Oct. 7, 2010 and assigned permit number X2010 -2379. The plans
were between first and second plan -check as of December 31, 2010. Information not provided
herein is available on those plans.
The following attachments are in support of this application:
• Attachment 1 includes Big Canyon Community Association Approvals
• Attachment 2 shows Big Canyon Community Association agreements pertaining to
parking mitigation and the privacy wall.
• Attachment 3 shows the plot plan and elevations.
• Attachment 4 shows the proposed wall and the location of a ten -foot setback. If a ten foot
setback were to apply, the yard would be virtually eliminated.
• Attachment 5 shows photographs of the existing conditions along Hillcrest. The views
show the exposure of the family room and bedrooms to Hillcrest. This leaves virtually no
privacy for the existing residence or the proposed remodel. It also creates a less attractive
streetscape along Hillcrest. This is an exceptional condition in Big Canyon, where most
lots are either conventional in -line or corner rectangular shapes.
• Attachment 6 shows the frontage of other houses on Hillcrest.
0 70 Hillcrest is dominated by a four car garage.
0 72 Hillcrest frontage is a landscaped privacy wall and three car garage
0 74 Hillcrest frontage consists entirely of a six car garage.
0 76 Hillcrest frontage consists of a privacy wall, garage entry and service bay.
0 80 Royal Saint George is a typical in -line lot.
The subject property is the only property on Hillcrest that exposes interior private spaces
to within fifteen feet or less of the street.
Attachment 7 further illustrates how the current configuration is inconsistent with other
walls in the immediate area. Where side or rear yards are adjacent to the street, even in
conventional configurations, those yards are defined by walls that are sidewalk - adjacent
or stepped back with planting strips.
• Attachment 8 shows privacy walls elsewhere shows privacy walls elsewhere in Big
Canyon, illustrating the overall community visual impact of the street where private yard
areas would otherwise be exposed to the street.
We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please contact me or our architect, Eric Mossman,
should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Laurence Netherton
(949) 644 -3514 ext 24 office
(949) 433 -5916 cell
cc: Eric Mossman, (949) 500 -7212
ATTACHMENT 1: BIG CANYON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS, INCLUDING CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO
PRIVACY WALL
1. Dated August 19, 2010
2. Dated October 21, 2010
August 19, 2010
D
92 AAA F~WA+ A" W
/949 /950- 15>S /,�az /99.➢ /SAS- 0196' /s- namr�amoQtv��rr�a�m
AROUTECTURAL APPLICATION — CONTINGENCY LETTER
L. & C. Netherton
78 Royal St George Rd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Canyon Hills Community Association
78 Royal St George Rd
Dear L. & C. Netherton:
As Management Agent for the Canyon Hills Community Association, we have been instructed by die Board of Directors
and/or Architectural Committee to contact you regarding your Architectural Application received for the following proposed
improvement(s):
Please be advised that the Board of Directors had an opportunity to review your application at their recent meeting and
herewith inform you that your application is CONTINGENT UPON THE FOLLOWING condition(s):
• Variance regarding wall in the front setback: Height of wall is approved at 61811
• Measurement of wall is based on the sidewalk as starting point and cannot exceed 61811 from that mark
• Per application & plaits presented - light pole will be placed where it shows on the approved plaits.
This conditional approval is effective for 180 days and automatically terminates on this date if the improvement does not take
place within such time.
The improvement shall be in conformity with the plans and specifications submitted with your request. All work shall be
done in a timely and workmanship manner, with the necessary permits and otherwise in compliance with all applicable
building codes and other governmental rules or regulations. Additionally, you shall be responsible for any damage to
Association common area caused as a result of work performed in conjunction with the aforementioned improvement to your
property.
Should you have any questions regarding the above referenced information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Sincerely,
V114.AWWAY MANAGEMENT, INC.
09virr-A- 1dtiehn Sr., CCAM®
Director of •operly Management
At the Direction of the Board of Directors
cc: Canyon Hills Community Association
LotFile
%way @tpprojects \Canyon Hills O08tAtchitechtral & CCRNrchitednral Cotrespl20MLcaerhead.doc
October 21, 2010
L. & C. Netherton
78 Royal St George Rd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Architectural Application — ApprovalLetter
Canyon Hills Community Association
78 ROYAL ST GEORGE RA
Dear L. & C. Netherton:
As Management Agent for the Canyon Hills Community Association, we have been instructed by the Board of
Directors and/or Architectural Committee to contact you regarding your Architectural Application received on
10/07/2010 for the following proposed improvement(s):
• Architectural application approved. Landscape requires further review.
Please be advised that the Board of Directors had an opportunity to review your application at their recent meeting
and herewith inform you that your application has been APPROVED. This approval is effective until 180 days and
automatically terminates on this date if the improvement does not take place within such time.
The improvement shall be in conformity with the plans and specifications submitted with your request. All work
shall be done in a timely and workmanship manner, with the necessary permits and otherwise in compliance with all
applicable building codes and other governmental rules or regulations. Additionally, you shall be responsible for
any damage to Association common area caused as a result of work performed in conjunction with the
aforementioned improvement to your property.
Should you have any questions regarding the above referenced information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Sincerely,
VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT, INC.
ArAgo P
Lin Ar
Associate Property Manager
At the Direction of the Board of Directors
cc: Canyon Hills Community Association
Lot File
flVwayQipro)[wlCanyonHills OOSbUd•i�ecmralA CCRWeSildvunl CortespVDIWl8 Rga151.Oeorge Apps 1021 104N
ATTACHMENT 2: BIG CANYON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
AGREEME NTS PERTAINING TO PARKING MITIGTION AND WALL LOCATION
1. July 22, 2010 Letter From HOA regarding proposal for parking mitigation and wall
location
2. Aug 3, 2010 Agreement with HOA regarding parking mitigation and wall location
3. Big Canyon Neighbor Approval Form showing one disapproval conditioned upon
above mitigation measures.
W &Y'W''Wa WWWWW!��A"mvl,�4
Jar6 ®� 964,7O8, .9v" WA 986YB
/9� 4S0 0146'/,- nwsPcvno@r,o4 am
July 22, 2010
L. & C. Netherton
78 Royal St George Rd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Architectural Application — Tentative Denial Letter
Canyon Hills Community Association
78 ROYAL ST GEORGE RD
Dear L. & C. Netherton:
As Management Agent for the Canyon Hills Community Association, we have been instructed by the Board of Directors and /or
Architectural Committee to contact you regarding your Preliminary Architectural Submittal received on 06/23/2010 for the
proposed improvement(s) as follows:
• Preliomiary Submittal
Please be advised that the Board of Directors had an opportunity to review your Architectural Application at their meeting held
on 07/22/2010 and herewith lateral you that your application has been TENTATIVELY DENIED based upon the following:
Upon revie, the Board of Directors has requested that the following items be agreed upon or presented for
review prior to approval:
• Elevation view showing planter / small retaining wall on common area.
• Color choices should maintain earth tones
• The neighbors on Hillerest have agreed to bear the cost of the removal and relocation of the street
light. The Board of Directors, in an effort to create harmony within the affected area, will offer a
compromise:
"If the Netherton's agree to remove the "Bubble" bump out before the Cul -de -Sac (at the street
light area) and incur all costs related to this project, the Board of Directors will approve the
requested small retaining wall on the common area, as shown on the submitted drawings. This
work will need to be completed with the creation / relocation of the driveway. This would increase
parking for the affected neighbors and allow the Netherton's to create the desired aesthetic effect
they are looking for.
Please submit these items to Management for review by the Board.
Should you have any questions regarding the above referenced information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Sincerely,
VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT, INC
a Z
Chelsea Lo, CLAM®
Property Manager
At the Direction of the Board of Directors
cc: Canyon Hills Community Association
Lot File
\ \Nmya\pmjensiCarypn Hilts 008 "Wlocwral & CMWAtmaral Coo®,,M1070 Royal St G00%a NMal 022210doe
rwyea xx r6 wnw�A41oW460sp
Oft'
August 3, 2010
Laurence & Cynthia Netherton
78 Royal St George Rd
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Laurence & Cynthia Netherton,
The Board of Canyon Hills Community Association (Association) is seeking to aid in finding a
solution which is mutually acceptable to the affected parties.
To resolve the concerns, it is being proposed:
Neighbors will accept all responsibility and costs associated with the relocation of the street light
in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. Mr. & Mrs. Netherton will
be allowed to relocate the driveway apron onto Flillerest Lane in accordance with plans
submitted by their architect. The Netherton's would accept responsibility and associated costs
for removing and relocating curbing on Hillcrest Lane approximately adjacent to the relocated
driveway apron to provide for additional on- street parking and improve the navigability on the
street in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. In addition, Mr, &
Mrs. Netherton would remove the existing driveway apron on Royal St. George, install a curb,
gutter and paving (if required) to provide for additional parking space.
Association would allow the construction of a planter /wall within the Right of Way of Hillcrest
Lane in accordance with the plans submitted by the architect, subject to the Association approval
of the cross section of the planter /wall yet to be submitted by the Architect.
sign if to these terms. Please return original to the above address.
J"a
e and date) Canyon Hills Community Association
11Vwayh*ol p3W"),an Hills OOSWCh,leyural8 CCR1Archxepural Consspt2010%?Te Royal 51 George ()80170 Doc
FORM 2
NEIGHBOR AWARENESS: The intent is to advise your neighbors who own property surrounding yours. Failure
to obtain these signatures will constitute an Incomplete submittal. The neighbor signature is not an approval.
Neighbors who disagree are invited to write their comments to the Architectural Committee in care of the
management company. 6 q,(- 41 }o
a. �b i�,C�aL u «
3.
a.
w w k I
5. c y-f jtLC &*AaS` `Al
e. `fa�S AYJ24 -- gyp_,, •_�" I 1
For additional comments�� a submit a separate piece of paper and attach to fo s� sf "" '�
ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE S�ti o� 'fv w 10 CCA 4A--
() Approval ca tU wbc--t
() Refer to Board of Directors for recommendations VVV
() Conditional Approval u 41 pq1 N "'Y
() Disapproval for the following reasons:
Date
Date
cc: Homeowner File
Architectural File
Architectural Committee
Architectural Committee Member
Architectural Committee Member
PVilhwu.�nfAdry .w W6epp1 I.vM.diWtBnu1O1 Alammmruc•FmelO]0999peNV ! itM¢I.M%. NTdee M11dI6 WmLW Vll/1Dlt U%.WPM 11FN®.' NOVFYBFAW=3
ATTACHMENT 3: SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
Site Plan as submitted under permit number X2010 -2379:
Note the detail in the upper left corner describing the wall / planter configuration
and the location of the wall on an approximately fifty foot portion of Hillcrest. This
also shows the unusual configuration of the lot which prevents a conventional wall
layout.
Elevations:
The proposed wall is shown on the "Street Elevation — Hillcrest Lane" to the garage.
W. it HL'T &Id
elf j1
t f111
I I'll
n.:enwnvvwvs+a'e : uvicenrcmay. -.a
t<t1it11EN yj �yaraH 4c6xa�y'¢()!.H'�¢+9'151o�CLL
W.
'
t
UOjJdiff a J�Ajs tlNImm
.�IVYVSSOTnI'307N� .,'_-,
w
=
,
W. it HL'T &Id
elf j1
t f111
I I'll
5
=
�
jiN
; i,;i t
?l HI I
I H.
��
±n
ff
! tii,t#
Y
_4°
l} -
zy
5E K;` la
71
I I.'
al
lir ie
I ,illy /
a �
r �
� kd #i ��8s�sis
5
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
zy
5E K;` la
71
I I.'
al
lir ie
I ,illy /
a �
r �
� kd #i ��8s�sis
5
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
lir ie
I ,illy /
a �
r �
� kd #i ��8s�sis
5
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
iiii; °Rr csnai..:.r.,. YJ'4aaaQl+oQMaN'°�U ^IQ'a8aoap h3l° <oM BL I �
�� L�I'dLVSSOi^I -'d �Rtfl uoi.Lai ax ua.muTg en�w � i 1 1 � Q
5
§ ¢ z a z
l j3 YF�jp. q
Ae
Nil
joss
fif dY � LLI
ill
1
x.• � 8 j I
l
N
1 c I pi i
b i �
Q � I 58d
/f
i
l l i
1
1
i
Existing 10 ft. Setback Line per Section V.(D) and
Relationship to Proposed Privacy Wall
� � f
REeneri;
* Pt
Nw
EXISTIINTG I -STORS
\ I' WITH ADDIT:
4
•01
I1J AREA
II
ATTACHMENT 4: SITE SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED WALL
ATTACHMENT 5: EXISTING CONDITIONS ALONG HILLCREST
5A. Hillcrest frontage from Royal Saint George
5B. Hillcrest frontage toward Royal Saint George
5C. Royal Saint George frontage
ATTACHMENT 6: OTHER FRONTAGES ALONG HH,LCREST
e
Y L
+.
6A. Corner of Royal Saint George and Hillcrest, Showing 70 (left) and 72 Hillcrest
frontages
6B. Interior of Hillcrest cul de sac, showing 72 (left) and 74 Hillcrest frontages (note that
the short length results in most frontage taken up by garages.
6C. View into Hillcrest cul de sac, showing 74 (left) and 76 Hillcrest garage frontages
ATTACHMENT 7: NEIGHBORING PRIVACY WALLS
7A. 70 Hillcrest wall along Royal Saint George
7B. 31 Augusta wall along Royal Saint George across from subject property
7C. 29 Augusta wall along Royal Saint George across from 70 Hillcrest
7D. 22 Cypress wall along Royal Saint George across from subject property
ATTACHMENT S: OTHER BIG CANYON PRIVACY WALLS
� I
I'
-Imr
Attachment No. PC 3
Project Plans
W. it HL'T &Id
elf j1
t f111
I I'll
n.:enwnvvwvs+a'e : uvicenrcmay. -.a
t<t1it11EN yj �yaraH 4c6xa�y'¢()!.H'�¢+9'151o�CLL
W.
'
t
UOjJdiff a J�Ajs tlNImm
.�IVYVSSOTnI'307N� .,'_-,
w
=
,
W. it HL'T &Id
elf j1
t f111
I I'll
5
=
�
jiN
; i,;i t
?l HI I
I H.
��
±n
ff
! tii,t#
Y
_4°
l} -
zy
5E K;` la
71
I I.'
al
lir ie
I ,illy /
a �
r �
� kd #i ��8s�sis
5
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
zy
5E K;` la
71
I I.'
al
lir ie
I ,illy /
a �
r �
� kd #i ��8s�sis
5
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
lir ie
I ,illy /
a �
r �
� kd #i ��8s�sis
5
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
t ;Q
Q
r a'
yr �W
�( O
P (h
y
0
r
iiii; °Rr csnai..:.r.,. YJ'4aaaQl+oQMaN'°�U ^IQ'a8aoap h3l° <oM BL I �
�� L�I'dLVSSOi^I -'d �Rtfl uoi.Lai ax ua.muTg en�w � i 1 1 � Q
5
§ ¢ z a z
l j3 YF�jp. q
Ae
Nil
joss
fif dY � LLI
ill
1
x.• � 8 j I
l
N
1 c I pi i
b i �
Q � I 58d
/f
i
l l i
1
1
i