HomeMy WebLinkAboutFair Residence (PA2003-226)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 2
January 8, 2004
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 644- 3208, rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2003 -094
Fair Residence, 456 Mendoza Terrace
(PA 2003 -226)
APPLICANT: Jerry and Blythe Fair
BACKGROUND:
On November 5, 2003, the Modifications Committee voted to approve Modification
Permit No. 2003 -094 for the following modifications in conjunction with the remodel and
addition to an existing single - family residence.
1. An exterior staircase with guardrails that encroach 2 feet and 6 inches into the
easterly 6 -foot side yard setback, which are approximately 9 feet and 6 inches
above existing grade.
2. A deck on the second floor that encroaches 1 foot into 15 -foot front yard setback
adjacent to De Sola Terrace.
3. The replacement of an existing concrete block wall that encroaches up to 3 feet
into the 5 -foot required front setback on Mendoza Terrace. The proposed wall
ranges in height from 4 feet, 2 inches to 4 feet, 9 inches above the existing
grade.
4. A new concrete block retaining wall located along the west side property line,
portions of which will exceed the 6 -foot height limit allowed in side yard setbacks.
5. Concrete block retaining walls creating a raised patio that encroach 5 feet into
the 15 -foot front setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace. The retaining walls range
in height from 4 feet, 6 inches to 5 feet, 6 inches at the highest point above
existing grade. Additionally, a 36 -inch high guard rail is required making the total
height of the proposed encroachments ranging between 7 feet, 6 inches and 8
feet, 6 inches.
Fair Residence
January 8, 2004
Page 2
Modification Permit No. 2003 -094 (PA2003 -226)
Current
Development:
Single
Family
Residence
To the north:
Single
Family
Residential
To the east:
Single
Family
Residential
To the south:
Single
Family
Residential
To the west:
Single
Family
Residential
Fair Residence
January 8, 2004
Page 3
Item No. 5 was the subject of many lengthy discussions, several revisions, and one
continuance by the Modifications Committee. After these considerations, the Committee
denied the original proposal that included a full encroachment into the required setback
area and a second proposal with an. 11 -foot, 6 -inch encroachment, and approved a
similar but less intrusive request as described above.
The applicant subsequently filed an appeal to the Planning Commission regarding Item
No. 5. In addition to the appeal application, the applicant submitted 24 letters in support
of their proposal for the Planning Commission to consider. The appeal and letters are
attached as Exhibit 5.
On November 21, 2003, the Planning Department received a letter from a nearby
resident, dated November 17, 2003, against the appeal and expressing the opinion that
the existing residence, without the proposed remodel and addition, was less obtrusive
with the previous landscaping consisting of several high hedges that the applicant
recently removed. The neighbor is also concerned that the proposed improvements to
the existing residence would possibly create a second unit on the premises (Exhibit 6).
DISCUSSION:
Appeal:
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider their appeal and
approve their second proposal to allow a new retaining wall and raised patio that would
encroach 11 feet, 6 inches into the 15 -foot De Sola Terrace setback. The proposed
retaining wall structures would be 31 feet, 4 inches wide and occupy approximately 50
percent of the required rear yard setback. The retaining wall would be at a maximum
height of 4 feet and 6 inches above the adjacent planter wall and would range between
4 feet and 8 inches to 5 feet and 3 inches in height above the existing grade (Exhibit 2).
The wall would also provide a 6 -foot setback to the adjacent lots.
The difference between the applicant's proposal and the approved project is the
placement of the retaining wall. The approved wall will be encroaching 5 feet into the De
Sola Terrace setback while the applicant's proposal would encroach 11 feet, 6 inches
into the required setback. Please refer to Exhibit 7, Page A.1, which shows the two
designs in detail.
The applicant cites the following supporting factors for the appeal:
• The plan provides for a usable garden area at the upper level;
• The plan places the height of the major wall at the same height as the adjacent
neighbor;
Fair Residence
January 8, 2004
Page 4
• The plan provides varying height walls which are more in keeping with the
property at 416 Mendoza;
• The plan also lowers the guardrail out of the property's primary view.
Please refer to Exhibits 1 & 4 for further information.
Analysis:
The Modifications Committee approved the four other minor encroachments, finding that
they would be acceptable and not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Committee
modified the applicant's request based upon the following findings:
• The garden or deck area that the applicant desires could be accommodated by
lowering the grade within the view front yard setback on De Sola Terrace or by
stepping down the slopping grade within the maximum height permitted by the
Zoning Code. This design would substantially reduce the adverse impact on the
streetscape as viewed from the public roadway or properties across the public
right -of -way.
• Adequate space exists within the buildable area of the site to accommodate the
design of the project that does not necessitate the substantial height and
encroachment within the required setback. The proposed encroachments would
adversely impact the streetscape as viewed from the public right -of -way and
properties located across De Sola Terrace. By approving this request, it could set
a precedent by facilitating a second street frontage and would change the
characteristic of this neighborhood.
The less obtrusive design approved by the Modifications Committee was based upon
the terraced wall standard for Old Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa
Peninsula. This standard does not apply to Irvine Terrace, but it allows a terrace
retaining wall design for residential properties that have an on -site existing grade in
excess of 2 feet in height above the adjacent side walk. The Committee's approval
would still allow the applicant a sizable deck/patio area, a terrace retaining wall design
with adequate area for landscaping while maintaining a reasonable 10 -foot setback
along De Sola Terrace.
In addition to the Committee's findings, the Planning Department further finds that the
applicant's desire to have the increased wall height above the existing grade and to
allow the requested encroachment so close to the property line in order to achieve a
certain garden design is not a valid and permissible request per the Zoning Code. As
mentioned above, the Code allows special provisions for retaining wall and gardening
design within the steep slope setbacks.
Fair Residence
January 8, 2004
Page 5
The Planning Department reviewed documents submitted for the appeal including the
photographs and agreed that these walls are in existence within the neighborhood.
Nevertheless, the majority of them were built under different circumstances, thereby,
are not comparable to their request. The existing retaining walls on 416 Mendoza
Terrace, however, were considered and approved by the Modifications Committee on
June 19, 1979. This request was approved 25 years ago, and may not be now a
favorable retaining wall design for the existing neighborhood as it provides a double
street frontage effect and alters the character of the street below.
Finally, the applicant's request is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 20.60.030.A.4 that limits fences, walls,
hedges, uncovered decks, landings, patios, platforms, porches, terraces, and similar
structures to 3 feet in height above the natural grade in all required front yard setback
areas (including any required side yard between the front property line and the required
front setback line).
With regard to the opposition letter, both the Modifications Committee and Planning
Department reviewed the applicant's submitted plans at different review stages and
concurred that the proposed layout of the basement floor plan does meet the definition
and criteria of an accessory dwelling unit, as defined and prohibited according to the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. The prior submitted plans showed a complete
independent living facility from the existing residence with separated sleeping, eating,
cooking, sanitation, entry way, and street access for the basement floor. The applicant
was informed of this determination. Subsequently, the applicant removed all the
appliances: a refrigerator /freezer, a microwave, a cook top, and a sink with garage
disposal, from the basement floor plan and resubmitted for the Planning Commission
consideration.
Environmental Review:
The project qualifies for a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption from the California
Environmental Quality Act which exempts the remodel and addition to the existing
single family residence from CEQA review.
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 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.
Fair Residence
January 8, 2004
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold and affirm
the decision of the Modifications Committee and approve Modification Permit No.
2003 -094.
The Planning Commission has the following additional options:
1. Upholding the appeal and approve Modification Permit No. 2003 -094 as
requested by the applicant.
2. Modify any aspect of the approved Modification Permit.
3. Refer the project back to the Modifications Committee for further consideration
and revision; however, staff does not recommend this alternative since the
applicant and Modifications Committee may not have a different outcome than
that already achieved.
Prepared by:
r �^
R salinh M. Ung, ciate Planner
Exhibits:
Submitted by:
&,�,A-,a
Patricia L. Temple, Pla Wing Director
1. Appeal Documents
2. The Applicant's Proposal
3. Precedents
4. The Applicant's Explanation Statement
5. Letters in Support of the Proposed Project
6. Letter in Opposition
7. Full -size Plans (for the Commissioners only)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
Application No.
Name of Appellant t �, y� - B`�, � 1($ ^ �j530
or person filing: J�AX�Y�� � e�� t nC Phone:
Address: 45(o AAeAJp'� lGIrIRY��fiz., rr_-
Date of Modifications Committee decision: N61 fmjX.r S 20 .
Regarding application of.
Fewk
for
(Description of application Filed with Modifications Committee)
(Refer to following modification permit no. Iv1D2003 -094) _
Provide a new rear retaining wall and patio outside the prescribed Newport
— Beach 20.60.030A(5) diagram in the De Sola Terrace setback. The encroachment —
. would be 11' -6" into the 15h setback, with a maadmum height of 4' -6" above the
- b- djacent planter wail. This proposed wall would range between 4.81' to 5.28'
above the existing grade.
Reasons for Appeal:
The approved modification does not allow for a useable garden /outdoor space and precludes _
the owner from developing the prime, view oriented, porfion of their property. The proposed site
_ walls, on the downhill side of the lot, are consistent with the surrounding Corona Highlands _
neighborhood, and pose no grant of special privilege.
Date
Signature of Appellant
PLANNING DEPT. SECRETARY or STAFF
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received:
20
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission within thirty (30)
days of the filing of the appeal unless.both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date
(NBMC Sec. 20.95.050)
cc: Appellant
Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.040B
Appeal. Fee: $875 pursuant to City Council Resolution 2002 -69.
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #270050001
F:tUsers1PL.NV%aredlFonns 2000 101d FomrsMonnsVnodappeal.doc
November 5, 2003
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92858
(949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3229
Laidlaw Schultz Architects
Craig Schultz, contact person
410 W. Coast Highway, #P
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Application No:
Applicant:
Address of
Property Involved:
Legal Description:
as
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 4111020 03.094
(PA2003 -226)
Staff on behalf of
Modifications
Committee:
Appeal Period:
Modification Permit No. MD2003 -094
(PA2003 226)
Laidlaw Schultz Architects
456 Mendoza Terrace
Lot 140, Tract 1237
Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206
14 days after approval date
The Modifications Committee modified the applicants' request and approved the following
encroachments into the required side, front and view side setbacks in conjunction with a
remodel and addition to an existing single family residence. 1) An exterior staircase and
guardrails that encroach 2 -feet 6- inches into the easterly 6 -foot side yard setback and are
approximately 9-feet 6- inches above existing grade. 2) A second floor deck that
encroaches 1 foot into 15 -foot front yard setback adjacent to De Sole _Terrace. 3) The
replacement of an existing concrete block wall that encroaches up to 3 feet into the 5 -foot
required front setback on Mendoza Terrace and ranges in height from 4 -feet 2- inches to
4-feet 9- inches above existing grade. 4) A new concrete block retaining wall located
along the west side property line, portions of which will exceed the 646ot maximum height
limit allowed in side yard setbacks due to the sloping existing grade that falls from the
front of the property to the De Sole Tem-ace side of the property.
Subiect of lenathvdisc ussion and one continuance:
5) The concrete block retaining wall and raised patio were finally approved to encroach 5
feet into the 15 -foot view setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace, where the Zoning Code
limits the height of walls and decks to 3 feet. The retaining wall and deck will .range in
height from 4 -feet 6- inches to 5 -feet 6- inches at the highest point above existing grade
with an additional 36 -inch guardrail on top. NOTE: It should be noted that two motions to
approve the portion of the proposed project with the De Sole Terrace encroachment at 15
feet into the 15 -foot front yard setback; and 11 -feet 6- inches into the 15 -foot front yard
setback6respectively, both failed with identical votes of 1 aye to 2 noes to approve. Staff
did not feel that the request for the garden justified the increased height of the wall and
guardrail above existing grade to encroach so close to the property line.
November 5, 2003
Page -2
Original Request.•
Request to allow an addition and alterations to an existing single- family residence that
includes an exterior staircase and guardrails that encroach 2 -feet 9- inches into the
easterly 6 -foot side yard setback and are approximately 114bet 3- inches above existing
grade. In addition, the applicant requests a second floor deck that encroaches 1 foot into.
15 -foot front yard setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace and 1 foot into the westerly 6 -foot
side yard setback. Also proposed are concrete block retaining and planter walls with a 36
inch open cable guardrail on fop. The retaining walls range in height from approximately
4 -feet 2- inches to 10 feet and are located within the 6 -foot side yard setbacks, as well as
the 5 -foot and 15 -foot front yard setbacks. The Zoning Code limits the height of walls,
fences and hedges in front yard setbacks to 3 feet.and in side yard setbacks to 6 feet
above existing grade. The property is located in the R -1 -B District.
The Modifications Committee, on November 5.2003, voted 3 ayes and 0 noes to approve
the application request as modified based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions.
The Modifications Committee determined in this case that the proposal would not be
detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the
modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, and made the following findings:
FINDINGS:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan designate the site for "Single - Family Detached" residential use. The
existing residential structure is consistent with this designation. The wails, decks
and staircase structures are accessory to the primary use.
2. This project' has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
3. The portion of the original request for modification to the Zoning Code that was
disapproved to allow the retaining wall and guardrail to encroach 15 -feet or 11 -feet
6- inches, respectively, into the 15 foot front yard setback adjacent to De Sola
Terrace would not be consistent with the legislative. intent of Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and is not a logical use of the property that would
be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for
the following reasons:
Adequate space exists within the buildable area of the site to
accommodate the design of the project that does not necessitate the
substantial height and encroachment within the setback which adversely
impacts the streetscape as viewed from the public roadway and properties
located across De Sola Terrace.
The garden or deck area that the applicant desires can be accommodated
by lowering the grade within the view side front yard setback or by
stepping down the sloping grade to either conform to the maximum height
permitted by the Zoning Code or substantially reduce the adverse impact
on the streetscape as viewed from the public roadway or properties
across the public roadway.
IS
November 5, 2003
Page - 3
4. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the
legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical
use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning
requirements for this District for the following reasons:
• The area of the required 15 -foot view/front yard setback adjacent to De
Sola Terrace slopes down with a grade change of approximately 6 feet,
which limits the amount of usable deck or yard area. By allowing a
retaining wall and raised deck to encroach 5 feet into the 15 -foot setback,
more usable deck space can be captured, while still preserving 10 feet of
open yard area and maintaining the characteristics of the neighborhood.
• The 2 -foot 6 -inch encroachment into the 6 -foot easterly side yard setback
with a new exterior staircase is minor in nature and will still provide
adequate means of access along the side yard.
• Due to the sloping topography of the subject property, the new block
retaining wall. to be located on the west side property line will exceed the
6 -foot maximum height limit for approximately 33 linear feet along a
property line that is 94.39 feet in length. This is a minor encroachment
into the side yard setback.
5. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed will not be detrimental to
persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any
detrimental effect of the existing use for the following reasons:
• The block wall located in the front setback adjacent to Mendoza Terrace is
replacing an existing wall in the same location and • is a minor
encroachment that has not resulted in a negative impact on the
— ..._.. --neighborhood-.- - —... _..-
• The encroachments into the east side yard setback with an exterior
staircase and the west side yard setback with a block retaining wall will be
located predominantly in the center portion of the lot. These
encroachments are minor in nature and will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
• Section 20.60.030 C of the Zoning Code allows protective railings around
balconies to project 6 inches into a required setback. The second floor
deck that will encroach 1 foot into the 15 -foot view /front setback adjacent
to De Sola Terrace is a minor encroachment.
• The retaining wall and raised patio adjacent to De Sola Terrace will be set
back 10 feet from the view /front property line and 6 feet from the side
property lines to_minimize the impact on the neighboring properties and to
allow adequate space to accommodate landscape plantings to obscure
the retaining wall. The landscape as presented by the applicant indicted
that'at least 50% of the vertical face of the upper retaining wall would be
obscured by vertical or hedge plantings.
6. The proposed encroachments into the side and view/front yard setbacks will not
affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties because:
• The encroachments into the view/front yard setbacks are located at the
street sides of the subject property and will not impact the flow of air and
light to the adjoining residential properties.
•+ The encroachment into the west side yard setback will be set back 6 feet
from the adjoining residential property, thus providing adequate space for
air and light.
/ November 5, 2003
Page -4
In the east side yard setback, the'staircase will maintain a 3-foot 6 -inch
setback to the property line, also providing adequate space for the flow of
air and light to the adjacent residential property. -
CONDITIONS:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot
plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. Anything not specifically approved by this Modification Permit is prohibited and
must be addressed in a separate and subsequent Modification Permit review.
1 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.
4. In the westerly side yard setback, the exterior staircase and guardrails (solid
wall) shall not exceed 9 -feet 6- inches in height above existing natural grade.
The staircase may project a maximum of 2 -feet 6- inches into the 6 -foot side yard
setback and shall be set back 3 -feet 6- inches from the side property line. . -
5. The second floor deck, including the guardrails, may encroach a maximum of 1
foot into the 15 -foot view/front setback adjacent to- De Sola Terrace.
Additiorially, it shall maintain a 14 -foot set back to the property line. No portion
of the deck may encroach into the 6 -foot side yard setbacks.
6. In the 5 -foot front yard setback adjacent to Mendoza Terrace, a new concrete
block wall may be constructed to replace the existing wall in the same location.
As depicted on the approved plans, the new wall shall not exceed 4-feet 9-
inches in height above existing natural grade, and it shalt not encroach more
than 3 feet into the 5 -foot setback at the westerly comer of the property.
7. A new block retaining wall may be constructed along the west side property line
with portions of the wall exceeding the 6 -foot maximum height limit. As depicted
on the approved plans, the portions of the wall that exceed 6 feet above existing
natural grade shall consist of approximately 33 linear feet and shall be no higher
than 11 feet above grade.
8. In the 15 -foot view /front yard setback adjacent to De.Sola Terrace, a new
retaining wall to support a raised patio may encroach a maximum of 5 feet into
the setback and shall maintain a 10 -foot setback to the property line. The
finished surface of the new raised patio area shall match that of the existing
patio, which is depicted on the approved plans as 194.56 above sea level. The
retaining wall may be 6 inches higher than the patio surface. A maximum 36 -inch
high guardrail shalt be permitted atop the retaining wall to comply with the
Uniform Building Code requirements. No portion of the retaining wall or raised
patio may be located within 6 feet of either side property line, except as conforms
to the maximum height of 3 feet above existing grade as permitted by the Zoning
Code. The landscape, as presented by the applicant at the hearing, shall be
installed so that at least 50% of the vertical face of the upper retaining wall shall
be obscured by vertical or hedge plantings or creeping vines.
9. Ptior to the issuance of building permits, a revised copy of the plans that depict
the encroachments approved by Modification Permit No. MD2003 -094 shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion in the file.
/ November 5, 2003
Page - 5
10. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction.
11. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
unless an extension is approved prior to the expiration date of this approval, in .
accordance with Section 20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14
days of the date of the decision. A filing fee of $915.00 shall accompany any appeal filed.
No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. A copy of the
approval letter shall be incorporated into the Building Department set of plans prior to
issuance of the.building permits or issuance of revised plans.
MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
By 04,--jk
Javie Garci6,AIGP, Senior Planner
Chair erson
JSG:jjb
Attachments: Vicinity Map
cc: Blythe & Jerry Fair, property owners
456 Mendoza Terrace
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Appeared in Interest: R. Englander, 452 Mendoza Ter
S. Bailey, 531• De Anza Ter. .
Appeared in Support: C. Schultz; 410 W. Coast Hwy.
J. Fair, 456 Mendoza Ter.
B. Fair, 456 Mendoza Ter.
E. Lumsdon, 457 Cabrillo Ter.
F: \Users\PIn\ Shared \PA's\PA- ApprLtr- MODapp.doc
J�
5
�. .
' ^�
�
V
�
) 1+�
�f{
\
{
�m
�
�
i
_
�
�
`�
r
R
<
� vt�
�w
�
_
�
5�
d4�
,µy „�..:.
..
�.
':§
_d-
L
6i
3
C
O
r
7
m
W
0
5
MR
k all
r 1w
m
G
mmff�M�E7
Y
L
5
0
teas
m
G
mmff�M�E7
tar.to•
r
n
ID
■�LJII�aoll.:
>
�Da
t
1
?
i
m
IN
lollL�L�_LL1
�
m
G
mmff�M�E7
Sal- I I hi
a
a
0
a`
N
tar.to•
r
n
ID
n�
>
t
1
?
m
Sal- I I hi
a
a
0
a`
N
Mb bb Re Wnlle
por xs. 9iapwm
Property
B eft
j
194'
tl^e
— w�l ♦194.71' Y
y
T.O. Wall A
190'
—
�
— Flev. +19050 Y
189'
Line M Netaml Gm
1
.n
186'
i
T.O. Curb A
Section 4
Y—B
2' -0'
2'—e'
Bownant A
_
Elw. +194.71 Y
194'
TA. Yall
192'
_
+ 91.97
T.O. Y911 A
+190'50 Y
floe of NaNml Gratla
106'
1B4'
-
Section 8
-°�
une m xaw.al c�aae
Bowmen[
+194.71
19Y
Elw. +191.97 Y
O
N
' 100'
T.O. Wall A
4SY
158'
`
to
W
a
E
Section 2
m
0
z
llne of xWaml Glade
9
R
C
194'
��
— B.
+194.21 Y
m
192' `
-
— T.O. Wall A
Y
a
tee'
T.O. Wall A
— Elay. +197.50 tr
Q
IN'
m
a
184'
Q
V
0
Section 7
v
a
� Q+
Ito Q4
�L gt
W
II
____�`
I
I O
I,
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a a
3
\/ 4
/
/ Y
7,1- {
L3
I
Ito Q4
�L gt
W
II
____�`
I
I O
I,
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a a
3
\/ 4
/
/ Y
7,1- {
�1 i
a -2
t
i
! t
a
s
!
Mill
IIIIIIIII'ME
:
Ell ll ■iiiui■9111 ■r'�I I I
r - -- - NMI
w�i 4
t
i� �
1
Laidlaw Schultr
r c h i t e c t s
410 W. Coast Highway Suft P Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tel: 949.645.9982 FAX 949.645.9554 Email: BHeidemanne aidhw5chub6i chiteas.com
Precedents for Proposed Walls at 456 Mendoza Terrace
416 Mendoza Terrace
Modification granted: 7-6' high retaining wall 2' -6' from De Sola Terrace property line and
10' -d' high retaining wall 4' -0" from De Sola Terrace property line.
(2) site Photos from De Sola Terrace
2. 436 Isabella Terrace
Within the modification documents, the plans show an existing 6-0' high retaining wall
approximately 1' -0" from the Rivera Terrace property line.
(1) site photo from Rivera Terrace
444 Mendoza Terrace
Existing 3-4" retaining wall with a 4'-8" shrub above (8'-(Y" total) along the De Sola Terrace
property line.
(1) site photo from De Sola Terrace
4. 440 Mendoza Terrace
Exisfting 3' -9" retaining wall with a 6'-0" wrought iron above (9'-9" total) along the De Sola
Terrace property lire.
(1) site photo from De Sola Terrace
5. 436 Mendoza Terrace
Existing vegetation approximately 7-0" high along the De Sola Terrace property line.
(1) site photo from De Sola Terrace
6. 444 Isabella Terrace
Existing 8' -5" wall approximately 3-0" from the Rivera Terrace property line.
(1) site photo from Rivera Terrace
7. 531 Hazel
Existing retaining walls approximately 10-0" high, (1) site photo
8 215 Poppy
Exisiting 11' -0" high wall, (1) site'photo
II
EXHIBIT 4
APPLICANT'S EXPLANATION STATEMENT 5
Explanation:
The original modification requested, as described in the modification permit (see
section 1) was for a rear yard retaining wall 15' into the setback at a height of
194.63'. After consideration by the modification's committee, it was suggested
that a 5' encroachment should be presented at the height of the original wall.
After reviewing the committee's recommendation, a second proposal was
developed. This proposal looked at the area of encroachment, as
recommended, and suggested moving that area down the hillside as a means
of lowering the finished height of the wall within the encroachment area. The
affects of this transfer of non- compliant area allowed for several positive results,
which lie outside the committee's recommendation:
1. Provide for a useable gardening area at the upper level
2. Place the height of the major wall at the same height as the adjacent
neighbor
3. Provides varying height walls which are more in keeping with the
neighborhood (see precedents - 416 Mendoza)
4. Lowers the guardrail out of the owner's primary view
Modification Committee Recommendation
Proposal
Guardrail blocks main view
Reduced backyard lawn
Imposing mass
- Lowers final height of wall
- In keeping with neighborhood
- Provides a variety of massing
- Lowers guardrail out of the view .
- Increases the useable yard
M
hx &
r:
y
low
�. \\
:
��
����
� �
)°
1
^
:
„oL -,L
MWIAMAMIUMIN
,£
z
0
0
0
i[7
I
m
C
J
6
O
i
CL
0
'a
r
m
m
n
0
c0
N
O
'O
C
CD
2
CD
to
d'
m �
V
C
CD
m
A= {
LL
50
o
c
��
g�
00
n
c
y
0 E
v
`
c
°
0
z o
vc.
y
a m
3
o
O
Jo _
.E
v
i
uj
�Z
J�mN oX
$°
cv
d
o
¢
'O
v
F
2 N E
a
+
N
O
O
>
o
i�n
°w;v
0
mU
- E
oo
p
om
v-
o.lw
alw
I
I
Y
„oL -,L
MWIAMAMIUMIN
,£
z
0
0
0
i[7
I
m
C
J
6
O
i
CL
0
'a
r
m
m
n
0
c0
N
O
'O
C
CD
2
CD
to
d'
m �
V
C
CD
m
A= {
LL
50
0
e'�■
Z '
'
i
I
M
�
�I
1
MOM�
'9
II i�
S�
9 1
1 gszz
N
s
I
1
i
I
�
t
II i�
SI
N
.g b'-g Cg
o
CR
�
yR
RR Sg
�
CR
w
iR
�g
R6
jR
`:- {s"-.`a:�.`r
• x::Y
' _ '`
��.
� " "_ ��
I
I
'tip` tT �`ti'<:.,::f � -' �
O
'
{rJ�
„£'
I
I • `�' h
� �
R
ggnn
I
Rr
S
I
I
El
El
1
gg
.mil
J-F
rt
I
O
PAI
1
IIIIIIII! ��.
t : I�IIIIIIIII�ii�i
kf fll g
Sf
a
gyp$•y i '$ a
q
Y
All 41,
I
I
I I I II
I
o
1
g�f
g
IIIIIIII! ��.
t : I�IIIIIIIII�ii�i
kf fll g
Sf
a
gyp$•y i '$ a
q
Y
All 41,
I I II II
I
I I I II
1
a
R . .fin_ mll�P'"1 I�-�
�.. ®e
�
n �Iln ffffni
... .............. .. . .
---ie 3
� •
#
•m
�
|
.k |
■
§)
M|%
�
�)
-a | *1
.
�
-
|
�|
|
a
,|
} !
1 )|
! !
!
!
�� ) }
§
�
|
,
|
■
/
|
! ! �
& | I
| �
| \ �
EXHIBIT 5
LETTERS IN SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPEAL
November 17, 2003
Dear Corona Highlands Neighbor,
We have applied for a modification permit through the city of Newport Beach to address
the steep slope in our backyard, which faces De Sola Ten-ace. Our slope drops down 10
feet within a 15 foot distance. We were denied and are now appealing this decision.
Our last home and garden was used in many Roger's Garden's class tours, Robert Smaus,
gardening editor of the LA Times, visited and wrote about our garden for his Special
Edition feature article, it was photographed for the book, "Outdoor Romantic Gardens,"
and Sunset, then chosen for the Newport Harbor Home and Garden Tour, but most
importantly was appreciated by all who passed and visited. They often left with new
names of plants and cuttings.
We are very grateful to our very talented architects Scott Laidlaw and Craig Schultz
for a modest updated design, which will gracefully remodel our home, built in 1959.
We originally asked that they design this house with a similar garden in mind to help the
house subtly disappear into the landscape versus standing out as prominently as it does.
We will be working with landscape designs fivm Roger's again and from the designs of
James van Sweden and Wolfgang Oehme in order to create another beautiful garden for
our community and us.
Due to the steep slope, we need to build two retaining walls in order to create the garden
area. The attached computer image of our plan, gives an idea of shape and height. It will
be the same height as our neighbors, Curt & Nancy Heaton's, fence. The computer does
not have the repertoire of planting_ material we will be using. As you can see, our plan
will not block any views and will be better than the previous bramble of ivy, oleander and
bougainvillea.or the current blue tarp.
Unfortunately, Jay Garcia, of the modification committee, felt a deck was a more normal
modification request instead of a garden. Because of his vote we have been unable to go
forward with our improvements. We have paid $5,000 in fees to try to beautify our
hillside and now are facing an additional $915.00 to appeal his unimaginative design of
ivy and ice - plant.
What we have proposed we hope will be of benefit to the community both through
aesthetics and increased property values. Would you please sign and return the attached
letter to us or, better yet, come to the appeal in support of this simple request to beautify
our neighborhood. If you have any questions please call (949) 718 — 3530.
Sincerely.
Jerry and Blythe Fair
456 Mendoza Terrace
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
3)
Ronald R Tomsic
4481sabeHa Terrace
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Telephone. (949) 644-6600
Fax. (949) 644-8721
E-Maff.'BTomsic@AOL.com
October 19, 2003
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884
Re: Modification Permit No. MD2003 -094
Gentlemen:
I am in receipt of your notice of the requests in the application for the above captioned
Modification Permit by Jerry & Blythe Fair at 456 Mendoza Terrace, Corona del Mar,
California.
I am a property owner within Corona Highlands and live only a couple of blocks from
the subject property. It is my opinion that the requests that they are making under this
application are quite innocuous and I feel that they should be approved.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
E�
Ronald P. Tomsic
RPT:shb
17
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
Jim & Mary Yorke
%?0.t 440 Mendoza Terrace
a Corona del Mar, CA. 92625
31
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
L/ (0 tle j a- 1PV Y G GC--
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property_ at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
�� I // /
November 2003
To. Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
WP A ;n suppo�the City ofNewport Beach ModificatiosAppeals-Conunittee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
SiTo
,5-� r�L 4
C. �� ha (IZL
b
�'D
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans'the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola. and De Anza.
We are m support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community-
Sincerely,
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
u 4/1 SAwaO
GDS, CA- T7b 2-1�
UL)
o
fl, I
IN
0-
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
A3
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sole, and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
��1
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community
Sinc ,
14 �Eg/� T�/ /acs
r'C1-
�5
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to"
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
Oats C I"
ZIOPvACOt.q
L
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
l U
UO
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
yet t
December 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely, .
I
��4�8�SECCA �RefI
° OQ CE
�
November 2003
To Whom it May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property, at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
Sco n McAfz
� 4�
WO Rr` ver&
�f tjYlA t� m� � �_��
Ise
a
5�
To Whom it May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear scope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Teaacew CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anna
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Apppels Committee to
approve these pleas as we belim it will be an improvement to Our community.
Sincenelp,
Zz lc, j r-«ac
5a
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely, }}��
5�
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property, at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
low
i
5`�
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
P-06 C -6 3 3�k°- C Efrr
42-f
-71 f- 403 -1`?
55
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
61
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern__;
We have viewed the pl t th Fair's � for the I G veemen of the rear slope of
their �� mipro �
property at 456 Mendoza Ten-ace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
E�ettno,L. ,� U,ilspau
-1 S 7 C�brt //a 7e r r
Cor6nu " A4*0;
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property. at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
ysZ �6.;1�0
5,�
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
F �x
p�
��o)
�D
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anna
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
If4- ?59 -10 Ito
�S�
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
o vaAw 0
CAft0 P #1 A tlilvv�
later ��I��r�d'
OL
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
4
c3
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sole and De Anna,
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
S�w�o ao
U�
�0'L�iGX�
zte
�t� Ca yce vGU 70 ,
oGrw -�- 44T 4.C,r�
0
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property. at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely, J ""� t7� -'7• �_
i
4�
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
0
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
I
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
C /
0
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Tenace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
_ � 4
CfdT_tt-
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern,
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our �connnunity.
SincerelY, rd-P 7VO +- �J/V. �
�.cC - er.�sci J�ttys+ .X�.c� �seG x' .•�a�c, ac.Z��z.
%Cold Ji 0� -
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;.
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
LINDA OETH
i Corporate Plaza 0 suite 190
3wport beach. CA 92660
y-
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property at 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdK CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community,
Sincerely,
13
November 2003
To Whom It May Concern;
We have viewed the plans the Fair's proposed for the improvement of the rear slope of
their property 456 Mendoza Terrace, CdM, CA, which faces De Sola and De Anza.
We are in support of the City of Newport Beach Modification Appeals Committee to
approve these plans as we believe it will be an improvement to our community.
Sincerely,
Few
11/21/2003 10:07 FAX
I
I
1-�,
n�
L
1&001/001
J" �
1
15
November 17, 2003
City of Newport Beach
Modification Committee
Attn: Jay Garcia
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTViET11
CITY of Nr-WO ,
,v 21 2003 PM
AM 25468
81819110111112 �l� i l i i
RE: 456 Mendoza Terrace, Corona del Mar - Modification
The owner of the house at 456 Mendoza Terrace, Blythe Fai; delivered this letter to me and
asked for my help.
My opinion is the house was less obtrusive with the previous landscaping. From what I was
told by a neighbog the Fairs were stopped from trying to put in a second unit on the bottom
story that faces our block. What a perfect entrance to this illegal unit this modification would
make.
The owner at 440 CabrilloTerrace has done the same thing. He has created an entrance to his,
bottom story from Serra so his tenant can park on Serra and access the lower unit this way
I am afraid that if the Fairs are allowed to do this, Corona Highlands will have another illegal
unit
Jean Grainger
536 De Anza
Corona del Mai CA 92625
949 - 640 -7123 Home
949 - 244 -5536 Cel
-17