HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.1_Materials Received_PA2010-173Correspondence
Item No. 2a
Marlene Pemstein Residence Minor Use Permit and Variance
YAGVIV -I 13
From: Steffen, Erin
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Burns, Marlene
Subject: FW: Pemstein Hearing
HI Marlene:
The correspondence below just came in for my item tonight. Can we forward it to the Commissioners and make it part
of the record?
Thank you!
Erin Steffen
Planning Division
Direct: (949)644 -3234
Fax: (949)644-3203
City of Newport Beach I Community Development Department 1 3300 Newport Blvd I Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Jim Stevenson fmailto :jstevenson2(alyahoo.coml
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 20118:05 PM
To: Steffen, Erin
Subject: Pemstein Hearing
Erin, I understand the hearing for the issues discussed below are rescheduled for tomorrow evening.
I will try to attend the hearing and also wanted to make sure my comments below are on record.
Thanks,
Jim Stevenson
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Jim Stevenson <Istevenson2(cDyahoo.com>
To: "astevenson2(abvahoo.com" <astevenson2(a)vahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 8:16 PM
Subject: Fw: Harold's hearing
To: Erin Steffen, Planning Technician, City of Newport Beach
From: James and Ann Stevenson: 2424 Holiday Road
Dear Erin,
Thanks for your time on the phone today to discuss the items up for hearing at the property on 2430
Holiday Road.
1
To reiterate my comments to you on the phone, I would like to offer our input as it relates to us as the
new owners of the house next door ar 2424 Holiday Road.
We understand that there is a hearing tomorrow but unfortunately I am away on business and will not
be able to attend.
We just recently purchased the home at 2424 Holiday Road, closing in early May and moving in at
the end of May. When we viewed the home for potential purchase, we did observe the following
items which are currently being considered.
1. a storage shed on the back of the property.
2. an extension to the backyard fence to raise the height.
3. the presence of an 8 -foot arbor in the front of the house next to our driveway.
4. An awareness of some modifications and additions to the home.
With regard to the retention of certain items, we would like to offer that we have no problem
whatsoever with the fence extension in the rear. In fact, we enjoy that it offers an additional level of
privacy between the properties, and we actually viewed the fence as a "feature" that we were buying
with the house. We have no problem with the storage shed either in the current state, since the
extension to the rear fence largely shelters it from view. In addition, we have no problem with the
arbors either, as they are attractive and the addition of flowers adds to the lushness of the
surroundings.
In general, we were aware of these items in their present state and would rather see them remain
rather than being taken away.
Thanks,
James and Ann Stevenson
2
Correspondence
Item No. 2b
Pemstein Residence Minor Use Permit and Variance
Steffen, Erin PA2010 -173
From:
Jim Stevenson pim.stevenson @yahoo.comj
Sent:
Thursday, July 07, 20114:29 PM
To:
Steffen, Erin
Subject:
2430 Holiday: Photo of fence from 2424
Attachments:
ATT13340499.txt
Erin,
Here are some pictures for the file. This is a picture of the fence from my balcony. Because the
balcony on this house is located all the way to the left side of the house, I would literally be looking
right down into their yard from my balcony and people in their back yard could right up into through
the balcony door if the extension were not there.
Thanks,
Jim Stevenson
Steffen, Erin
From: Jim Stevenson pstevenson2 @yahoo.comj
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:33 PM
To: Steffen, Erin
Subject: 2nd photo of 2430 holiday fence from 2424 yard
Attachments: ATT13340591.htm, photo.JPG
Erin,
Here is another view of the fence addiiton from my side. You can see that it looks very nice, adds
privacy, and reduces noise
flow. Also, our lot slopes up toward the back of the yard. So while at the front the orginal fence
extends to abou 62", if you walk to the back end of the yard, the height is only about 510 ". 1 am 6
feet tall, so without the extension, I could walk right over to the fence and view over it just by lifting my
head and not even standing on my toes.
Thanks,
Jim Stevenson
u.
Ao-
J. r. +r.
lam. 4-
II
r.
i
A-
�'
kL
t �'
PPF
1
1
9
w.
PPF
1
1
9
JA\\
'tom POW
u
r
r•
.•r}.. �.
-4,4, ..
t' �, '� of ! ` ��+� � •'4 •� 1
:1
4•ry,/ys'a"y'. 1{�i -F�.r_ �, �S.,L', ",��, � i °' %_ .��:fHR.
Correspondence
Item No. 2c
Pemstein Residence Minor Use Permit and variance
July 7, 2011 PA2010 -173
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Although I am aware that you've been given information on my residence at 2430
Holiday Road; NB, I believe that giving you the opportunity to view photos of the issues
under discussion will help to clarifyjust what we're addressing tonight.
For the record we want to state that when we constructed all the items below we did
contact the City for rules, guidance & restrictions. We did our due diligence and
proceeded with the information we were given, trusting that we were in compliance
because we followed the instructions we were given. We find ourselves now, several
years later. having to defend our actions which were based on NB City codes which we
were told by City employees in their official capacity.
This situation runs counter to the City's own Code 20.00.030 which states:
" .. it is not intended by the adoption of this code to repeal or in any way to impair or
interfere with any existing provision of law of the City of Newport Beach. or any rules.
regulations. or permits previously adopted or issued or which shall be adopted or issued
pursuant to law relating to the erection. construction establishment moving alteration or
enlargement of any legal building or improvement..."
According to the City's own definition of "nonconforming structure", all items at issue
are indeed "nonconforming", NOT illegal.
Since we find ourselves here having to defend actions we took based on City guidance,
let's proceed to the items under debate.
Items # 1, 3 & 4 and Item 92 : Arbors
If you look at the photo titled "arbor to be removed" you can clearly see the structure. All
the arbors are constructed identically. You can view the 3 we would like to keep in
photos "front arbor clear ", "fountain arbor from steps" and "back arbor louver Stevens
side ". When these were built the City code was that as long as they had a footprint of
under 120 square feet they were allowed and legal. They are 8' high.
Item # 5: Brick wall encroachment
Please see photos "brick wall encroachment". "brick encroachment our side ".
When you clarify the exact problem here, the discrepancy between the wall that has
existed for over 10 years and the City code, it comes down to: 4 -5' of the wall is 13" too
high. The wall was jointly built by us and previous neighbors and is nowjointly owned
by us and the current neighbor. It enhances the beauty and privacy of both properties and
poses no safety hazard to the public.
Item # 6 & # 7: Wooden addition to tom of block wall
Please see photo "louver back Stevens", "Doris lattice from cement".
The newest of these wooden additions to the permitted block wail are 6 years old, the
oldest are over 20 years old. At the time they were built all neighbors living here then
agreed and contributed to their construction. We are the only original neighbors still in
residence. There has never been any safety hazard due to these structures.
Item # S: Outdoor fireplace
Please see photo "fireplace and chairs"
This gas - burning fireplace exceeds current setback restrictions (ie: even further from
existing structures than code demands)
When this fireplace was constructed approximately 8 years ago there was no provision
in the City code (section 20 60 07011 regarding height restrictions.
In its complaint re: the fireplace the City cites its height at 8`3" stating a 6' maximum
allowed.
However, the NB City Zoning Code; Title 20. dated Oct. 26. 2010 states:
4.'Chimneys and vents. Chimneys and spark arrestors for fireplaces and roof-
mounted vents shall be allowed to exceed the allowed height limits as follows:
a. Chimneys may extend above the allowed height limit a maximum of 2 feet
or a greater height if required by the City's Building Code.
So according to the City's own rules our fireplace may be 3" too high
Item # 9: Storage Shed
Please see photo "storage and swing"
Again- we checked with the Citv before beginning construction. We were told that as
long as it was under 120 square feet "no aermit required."
This is an "accessory building` per the City's definition: "A subordinate building, the use
of which is incidental to that of the main building on the same lot and/or development
site."
The codes we were directed to at the time were:
1.) City of Newport Beach — Building Dept.
Administrative Poliev
Effective Date Aug 24, 1999 Subject: Gazebo Permits Policy No. ADiv1301.2
Section 301.2.1, "Building Permits" exempts "One story detached accessory buildings
used as tool and storage sheds; play houses and similar uses, provided the floor area does
not exceed 120 square feet" from a building permit'
2.) 20.60.020: Accessory Structures and Mechanical Equipment
A. Accessory Buildings- bards
Where an accessory building more than 6 feet in height, is attached to the
main building; it shall be made structurally a part of an have a common wall with the
main building or be connected to the main building by a solid cover; a minimum of 4 feet
wide and shall comply in all respects with requirements of this code applicable to the
main building. Unless so attached, such an accessory building in a residential district
shall be located on the rear one -half of the lot and be at least 6 feet from any
dwelling building or other accessory building existing or under construction on the
same lot.
Our storage shed fulfills all these requirements.
In closing, we hope that it's clear that in all our home improvements we've sought to
follow City of Newport Beach directives. That we should be penalized after the fact for
changes in code seems clearly and totally unfair.
Respectfully,
Harold Pemstein
Deborah L. Lucas
2430 Holiday Road, NB 92660