HomeMy WebLinkAboutButler Residence (PA2002-037)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: June 6, 2002
�+t�+ PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 5
_ r 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Butler Residence (PA2002 -037)
911 W. Bay Avenue
SUMMARY: Appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee's approval of
Modification Permit No. 2002 -018.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Approve, Modify or Deny Modification Permit No. 2002 -018.
APPELLANT: Robert Butler
911 W. Bay Avenue, Newport Beach
LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of 9h street and Bay
Avenue, Balboa Peninsula
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Portion of Government Lot 4, Section 34, Township 6, South Range 10
West
GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential
ZONING
DISTRICT: R -2 (Two - Family Residential
Introduction
On May 8, 2002, the Modifications Committee approved the subject modification request to
allow the retention of a portion of a deck and deck rail within the required front yard setback.
The approval deviated from the applicant's request in that it authorized only a portion of the deck
extension requested (Exhibit No. 1). The applicant, through his attorney, filed an appeal of the
action (Exhibit No. 2). Although the appeal does not request a remedy, staff has assumed that the
appellant seeks that the Planning Commission modify the approval to include the entire deck
extension as originally requested by the applicant.
Background
On May 3, 2000, the Modifications Committee approved Modification Permit No. 5080 for a
patio cover to encroach 2 feet, 10 inches into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. During
construction, staff discovered an inconsistency between the approved Modification Permit and
the building plans. The Planning Director determined that the building plans were not in
substantial conformance with Modification Permit No. 5080. The applicant filed an appeal of the
substantial conformance determination, which was considered by the Planning Commission on
July 19, 2001. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's determination. The applicant
decided not to pursue further appeals and changed the project to comply with Modification
Permit No. 5080. Construction of the patio cover was completed later that summer.
After receiving complaints from neighbors, staff determined that the second floor deck railing
above the patio cover was moved from the permitted location to the leading edge of the structure
within the front yard setback without the benefit of permits. Condition No. 3 of Modification
Permit No. 5080 specifically prohibits this activity without first obtaining an amendment to the
permit. The applicant indicates that it was an "oversight" that he neglected to request permit in
advance of the alteration of the deck railing.
Current Development:
Duplex
To the north:
Beach, Newport
Bay & Single Farnily Residences
To the east:
Single Family
Residences & Duplexes
To the south:
Single Family
Residences & Duplexes
To the west:
Single Farnilv
Residences & Duplexes
Butler Residence PA2002-037)
June 6, 2002
Page 2 of 4
2
Proiect Overview
The project consists of the retention of the second floor deck and deck railing within the front
yard setback. Copies of photographs of the deck are attached as Exhibit No. 3. The railing
currently encroaches 2 feet, 10 inches within the required 5 -foot front yard setback. The 36" high
railing is constructed of wood with glass or acrylic panels and extends from the western building
wall across the face of the building to approximately 7 feet from the eastern property line.
Modifications Committee Action
The Modifications Committee acted to approve only a portion of the requested encroachment. The
easterly, portion of the . deck (approximately 9 feet) was disallowed due to its proximity to the
neighbor to the east. The deck surface was also required to be eliminated with the structural
elements allowed to remain so that relocation of the railing would not readily occur in the future.
Staff felt that this condition requiring removal of the decking material is an important safeguard,
given the history of this project. The changes to the applicant's request were made due to a belief
that the design and location of the deck as requested would prove detrimental to the abutting
property to the east. Locating the encroachment further to the west avoids imposing upon the view
and privacy of the abutting property.
Appeal
The appellant believes that the decision of the Modifications Committee "violates and abridges the
applicant's constitutional rights; exceeds subject matter jurisdiction of municipality; takes property
rights without due process; and violates (the) applicant's civil rights under all applicable laws." The
appellant has offered no facts to support this position.
The required finding for approval of a Modification Permit is stated in Section 20.93.040.
"In order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Modifications
Committee shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property
or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is
consistent with the legislative intent of this code. "
The facts to support the approval of the modified project are contained within the attached approval
letter (Exhibit No. 1). As of the drafting of this report, the appellant has not presented any
additional information relative the required finding above.
Conclusion
Based upon the available information, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold and
affirm the decision of the Modifications Committee. The modified deck provides the applicant with
a large deck for his enjoyment while avoiding negative impacts upon the neighbor's privacy and
view.
Butler Residence PA2002-037)
June 6, 2002
Page 3 of 4
3
The Commission has several other alternatives to consider. First, the Commission may deny the
requested Modification Permit if the Commission is unable to make affirmative findings to approve
the request. This option will require that the applicant return the deck railing back to its authorized
location in accordance with Modification Permit No. 5080 (2 feet 10 inches to the south). A second
alternative is to uphold the appeal and approve the project as requested. This action will require that
the findings and conditions of approval be modified to eliminate references to the changes make by
the Modifications Committee. The Commission also has the option to develop a compromise
design that has not been identified.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
Approval letter for MD2002 -018
Prepared by:
JAMES CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
Ir
2. Appeal
3. Application and correspondence considered by the Modifications Committee
4. Photographs submitted by the applicant
5. Project plans
Buffer Residence PA2002-037)
June 6, 2002
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit No. 1
Approval letter for MD2002 -018
5
May 8, 2002
5';;
CITY �F NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644.3200; PAX (949) 644.3229
Meserve, Mumper & Hughes
Attn: Bernard A. Leckie
17300 Redhill Avenue, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614
Application No:
Applicant:
Address of Property
Involved:
Legal Description:
MODIFI �FtirrION PERMrr NO. MD2002 -018
(PA2002 -037)
Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206
Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date
Modification Permit No. MD2002 -018
(PA2002 -037)
Robert Butler, property owner
911 West Bay Avenue
Portion of Government Lot 4, Section 34, Township 6, South
Range 10 West
Request as Modified and Approved.
Request to allow the retention of a deck extension completed without benefit of a building permit.
The deck area was formerly a solid roof patio cover that encroaches 2 -feet 10- inches into the
required 10 -foot front yard setback. The extension increases the depth of the deck 2 -feet 10- inches
and maintains the required 3 foot side yard setbacks. The Portion of the deck that was approved was
from a point located one foot east of the existin dg oor onening measuring westward to the existing
end of the deck at the westerly side yard setback line The portion of the existing deck that lies
easterly of the starting point of the approved deck dimension was disapproved and is required to be
modified to remove the deck material
and open the structure to create an open beam trellis
structure This will accomplish the shade
pMose of the originally anproved patio cover and
provide for a structure that
cannot
be converted to a deck extension. The property is located in the
R -2 District.
Original Request:
Request to allow the retention of a deck extension completed without benefit of a building permit.
The deck area was formerly a solid roof patio cover that encroaches 2-feet 10- inches into the
required 10 foot front yard setback. The extension increases the depth of the deck 2-feet 10- inches
and maintains the required 3 foot side yard setbacks. The property is located in the R -2 District.
The Modifications Committee, on May 8, 2002, 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
May 8, 2002'
Page - 2
would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
and made the following findings:
FINDINGS.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
designate the site for "Two - Family" residential use and the existing residential structure is
consistent with this designation. The second floor deck is accessory to the primary use.
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).
The Modifications Committee determined that in this case, that portion of the proposal
for the deck extension easterly of the door opening would be detrimental to persons,
property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would
not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code for the following reasons:
The deck extension across the entire frontage of the property is not necessary to
provide reasonable access or use of the second floor deck.
The limited horizontal dimension does not adversely affect the access or useable area
of the deck.
The horizontal dimension affords preservation of existing private views of the
immediately affected residents across the subject property.
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 deck extension, as approved, provides reasonable use of the deck that would
otherwise be prohibited by strict application of the Zoning Code regulations.
• The restriction on the horizontal dimension provides the deck with adequate width for
access and use of the deck.
• The approval of the deck rail to extend beyond the face of the useable surface of the
deck does not create any greater visual impact than the actual deck surface area since
it is required to be of transparent material as currently constructed.
• The useable deck surface is limited to the 2 feet 10 inches into the front yard setback
and the required guardrail rail is allowed to extend approximately 4 inches beyond
that dimension as currently constructed which should minimize the visual impacts.
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 deck extension, as approved, will not adversely affect the property to the east
since the deck extension has been restricted in the horizontal dimension to minimize
adverse impacts.
• The approved deck extension minimizes adverse impacts on the existing private
views and privacy of the neighboring properties.
6. The project as proposed will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential
properties because:
W
May 8, 2002
Page - 3
• The deck extension is located at the street side elevation of the building.
7. The project as proposed will not obstruct public views or private views from adjoining
residential properties because:
The public views to the bay are not across the subject property, but visible from the
public street.
The private views of the Bay are generally toward the street side of the property.
The required modified construction of a portion of the patio cover extension will prevent
future extension of the deck surface.
9. The approval of a full width deck extension could set a precedent for the approval of
other similar requests that could be detrimental to the neighborhood.
10. There is no justification for allowing the proposed full width encroachment, since the
deck as approved provides the applicant with adequate access and use of the second floor
deck.
11. The full -width deck extension and patio cover are not necessary to provide the shade
desired by the applicant since a trellis with open beam construction will achieve the same
result.
12. Structures on sites in the vicinity of the subject property generally maintain the required
front yard setback of 10 feet.
13. The adjacent property owner that is immediately affected is opposed to the proposed full -
width deck extension.
CONDITIONS.
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. This approval allows the retention of a portion of the existing second floor deck that lies
from a point beginning one -foot east of the existing door opening and extends westerly to
the west end of the existing deck. The deck area extends a maximum of 2 -feet 10- inches
toward West Bay Avenue and the required guardrail shall be allowed to extend
approximately 4- inches beyond the face of the deck.
The portion of the deck extension that was disapproved shall be modified to remove the
deck surface and lower level ceiling material, enclosed electrical fixtures and to change
the solid shade structure in that area to an open beam trellis structure. The disapproved
portion is the deck area that lies easterly of a point one -foot east of the existing door
opening and ends at the easterly end of the deck structure. The final design of the trellis
structure shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine
compliance with this condition.
4. A building permit shall be obtained for the as -built construction within 30 days from the
date of this letter. If this matter is called up or appealed to the Planning Commission or
City Council, the applicant shall obtain a building permit within 30 days from the final
effective date of the action. The plans submitted to obtain the permit for the as -built
construction shall include an accurate site plan, elevations, sections and structural details
I
May 8, 2002,
Page - 4
to accurately depict all aspects of the approved project including the approved deck
dimensions and change of the disapproved deck surface to an open beam trellis structure.
All construction shall comply with requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
5. Prior to final of the building permit, a copy of the revised plans issued for the building
permit shall be submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion in the Modification
Permit file. Said plans shall accurately depict the approved configuration of the as -built
deck, required railing and trellis structure.
6. 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.
7. 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 $741.00 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-
Javitf S. Garcia VCP, Senior Planner
Chairperson
JSG:jjb
FAUSERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2002 \PA2002- 0371MD2002- 018appr.doc
Attachments: Vicinity Map, cc:
Robert Butler, property
Appeared owner
in Opposition: Blair T. Bryant, 909%: W. Bay Avenue 911 W. Bay Avenue
Balboa, CA 92661
Letters
in Opposition: Mike Clary, 909 W. Bay Avenue -
Blair T. Bryant, 909'/2W. Bay Avenue
Proponent Bernard A. Leckie
Representative:
1D
NEWPORT CHANNEL
r
CD rn
Subject Property
co
0 200 400 Feet
VICINITY MAP
Modification Permit No. MD2002-018
PA2002-037
911 W. Bay Avenue
\rr
LAWRENCE H, DAVIDSON
A T T O R N' E Y A T L A W
May 21, 2001
HAND DELIVERED, VIA FACSIMILE & CERTIFIED MAIL
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Attn: Javier S. Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner
Application No.:
Applicant.
Property Address:
Legal Description:
Dear Mr, Garcia:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Modification Permit No. MD2002 -018
(PA2002 -03 )
Robert S. Butler
911 West Bay Avenue
Portion of Government Lot 4, Section 34,
Township 6, South Range 10 West
This letter constitutes Notice of Appeal to the Planning Commission for the City of
Newport Beach of the decision of the Modifications Committee decision in the above
matter dated May 8, 2002. Further this letter constitutes written notice of designation of
Lawrence H Davidson as the Proponent Representative in these proceedings.
The Appeal to Planning Commission filing fee of $741.00 is attached to this letter and
hereby submitted with this Appeal.
V Y yo
Robe S. Butler
Applicant and Property Owner
cc: Bernard A. Leckie, Esq.
537 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 537. NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 r TELEPHONE (949) 500-6275, FACSIMILE (949) 496 -3711
IS
May 21 02 09:13p Lawrence H. Davidson 9494963711 P•2
•••..�. wv. ... a.. >> vi• eee> •u+vn. u•v uuenn++'+u+Ya *i1 o4 C.uuL /uvL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
Application No.
7)
Name of Appellant G`CO�CrZf �dn�Q
or person filing: 8`% I-1qA14&IC& D�di1�5 o a Phone• `W --e00 'b 17 S
Address: 537A16wPwe1'0_ 2 De ..�u�. S-77 f 1V,�;V^,z.r Ra-,rr�, CA-924.60
Date of Modifications Committee decision; 20 y'Y
Regarding application of: /QF%dcer cP, (J~v �. far
(Description of application filed with Modifications Committee) !Q5K -- '7G S' r-16a CP
gtl AVIeQ -*1;; r 9r F in/co��i+a v gy s
Re a sorts for Appeal l:. t: /Si'Jri V10tf17P"S #*Jt9 leOZ06cS' *;P61C4Affr <b JJ'7)ls/rtaNA'-
/�G e�sa�e„od oA &4w,c.Ra
,*VD V/D GAS AIIOK;C 9wlI
Date S 01/02.--
PLANNING DEPT. SECRETARY or STAFF
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received % *'Y 20 20 O z/
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 data
(N8MC Sec. 20.95,050)
CC: Appellant
Planning (Furnish one set of rwM g lebats for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0405
Appeal Fee: $749 pursuant to resolution adopted by City Council on July 2001
(Da osit funds with Cashier In Account #2700.500Q)
FAUsersWLNk$hared%FOmfs 20000d FormslTtormslmodappeal.doc
I ID
Exhibit No. 3
Application and correspondence considered
by the Modifications Committee
1-7
a
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Application: J91 Modi&,ation Permit No. :�, O
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ❑ Accepted by: .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH', CA 92058
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250
PART I: Cover Page
Project Common Name (if applicable):
PA2002 -037 for MD2002 -018
911 W. Bay Avenue
Bernard A. Leckie for Robert Butler
FEES:
APPLICANT (Print):
SAW
CONTA PERSON (if different):
ailing Address:�7J�
Mailing Address:
Phoned kIB ( Y
Phone / g?,�5Tax ( ! T✓�l�
Property Owner (if different from above):
Mailing Address: /NF
Phone:( ) Fax ( )
PROJECT ADDRESS:
Project Description and Justification
lf��iIAI /t/ /Y1+6,5
briefly) Vries. �`i�d4 / 3 S/ Tb
MST h X40,,0%7 -AA S 445 TZ�' Aoyg 13;W .GeFi�r�v�
DAL e � a e�
PR ERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
(I) (We) —49 depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the property(ies)
involved in this app [cation. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of pe that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained
and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and co to a best of m) ovule belief.
p /'��
IDA 1 r) Signature(s)
DEB 1 9 2002
NOTE: Angdait( ajVStj;iMioM of written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application.
Work to be done: A&e 15 A10 -5yM
Present Use: Ga�Proposed Use: Ste¢ ALI—O0� Zone:
Main building area
,Garage area
Oven s ace
Parkins? spaces
Building height
Use Permits, Variances, etc.:
f7L.1/ A/Q
LegaWescription of Property Involved ccif too loin , attach separate sheet)
nx a¢ Gov "7-#, S 3 , 7`d S � /D u/ 5-16s "
d P47» 2'7 --7f7
DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE, FOR PLANNING DEPT. USE ONLY:
Indicate Previous Modification Permits, Use Permits, Variances, etc.
General Plan Designation:
Zoning District: Coastal Zone: YES or NO
�*►***sssssss �r**s ss*ssss a* �** �* �**ss *� *sss * * *ssssss * * * * * *r * *ss *s * **
Date Filed: x - t ci - 0 2 Fee Pd: Receipt No:
Date Deemed Complete: Hearing Date:
Posting Date: R 14- 0;z Mailing Date:
Modifications Committee Action:
(Date)
Planning Director Action
Date
P.C. Hearing
C.C. Hearing 's
❑ Approved, Subject to Conditions ❑ Denied (check one)
Appeal
P.C. Action
Appeal ^
C.C. Action
20
_05/07/02 TUE 15_.25 FA% 1 970 468 5264 IM 001
Mr. Jay Garcia
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
Fax No. 949 644 3229 May 7, 2002
Re: Modification Permit No. MD 2002 -018
(PA 2002-037)
911 West Bay Avenue
Dear Mr. Garcia,
Blair Bryant faxed me Mr. Butler's proposed compromise letter dated May 3,
2002. By granting Mr. Butler's request to put in a 6'/ foot diagonal railing, you
would also be granting him permission to load the new deck with barriers to our
view corridor. To appreciate the type of barriers that can be placed on the east
side of his new deck, one only has to see what he has recently placed on the
new eastward extension of his original deck. These consist of three trellusis, a
solid wall below the deck railing and a very large patriotic American flag. All
perfectly legal. For this reason I still support your proposed compromise stated
at the last Modification Committee meeting that the east half of the new patio
cover should remain just that— a patio cover, preferably roofed over as shown
on Mr. Butler's submittal to the Building Department.
Sincerely,
Mike Clary
Xc Blair Bryant
21
LOS ANOELE9 OFFICE
555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
18TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, OAUFORNIq 90071-2319
TELEPHONE (2 13) 6200300
FAcs,MILE (213) 625-1930
SAN DIEOO OFFICE
750 "0" STREET
sum 2200
SAN DIE00. CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE (6 19) 237 -0500
FACSIMILE (619) 237 -0073
May 3, 2002
MESERVE, MUMPER & HUGHES LLP
17300 RED HILL AVENUE
SUITE 250
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9 26 1 4 -56 5 3
TELEPHONE (949)474 -8993
FACSIMILE (949) 975-1 CBS
City of Newport Beach
Community and Economic Development
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Attention: Mr. Garcia
Eoww A, MESERVE
s 1853 - 1955 )
SHIRLEY E. MESERVE
( 1889 - 1959 1
HEWLINOB MUMPER
1 I5 59 - 1958 )
CLIFFORD C. HUGHES
1 1594 - 1981 )
J. ROBERT MESERVE
( 1916 - 1997 )
OUR REF. NO
546450D1
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY r-)c k, r -,LL — ..A; -.ty
AM MAY 0 3 2002 PM -
71819110111112111213141318
4.
Re: Our Client: Mr. Robert S. Butler
Application of Robert S. Butler concerning property at 911 W. Bay Avenue,
Balboa, California 92661
Modification Permit No. (PA 2002 -037)
Dear Mr. Garcia:
Please find enclosed a proposed sketch of what Mr. Butler proposes as a
compromise. In his proposal, the existing railing would be removed as indicated
and the diagonal railing would extend approximately 6 1/2' between the posts as
indicated. In this way, Mr. Clary would have an open sight line. This is a
proposal and compromise which Mr. Butler believes to be reasonable.
The question of any interference with Mr. Clary's view seems to be minimal as
Mr. Clary has a fantastic view from his patio and the railing is only waist high and
the only conceivable restriction would be if a person was sitting down as there was
no impairment before or after if a person stands up on Mr. Clary's patio and looks
out toward the bay. Mr. Clary and I had a long discussion after the recent hearing
in an effort to come to a compromise and the proposed drawing is a suggested
resolution from Mr. Butler.
22
Olt
MESERVE, MUMPER & HUGHES LLP
City of Newport Beach
May 3, 2002
Page 2
I am unaware of the extent of consideration given by the Planning Department to
private views but clearly no public view restriction is involved.
Your thoughtfulness in giving this matter your consideration is greatly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Dictated But Not Read
Bernard A. Leckie
Of Counsel
for MESERVE, MUMPER & HUGHES LLP
BAL:mt
Enclosure
32216.1
23
r. v
1
j
r i3 {'
Zak
1L
�
rr
A
�1
W
j
r i3 {'
Zak
05/02/02 THU 13:51 FAX 1 97/0468 5264 (� 9 002
Mr Jay Garcia
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Fax No 949 644 3250 May 2, 2002
Dear Mr. Garcia,
At the April 24, 2002 Modification Committee meeting concerning Mr. Butler's
unapproved deck extension you suggested a compromise placement of his new
deck railing. This would allow Mr. Butler to keep the railing where it is now on
roughly the west halt of his new patio oover /deck extension. The railing on the
eastern half of the patio cover would be removed and returned to its original
position before construction of the new extension. The dividing line would be
essentially in line with the east side of the upstairs balcony sliding glass door.
This is directly below the peak of the roof. I believe I heard you say that you
would be against approving any deck extension farther east, toward my house,
than this point. In the spirit of compromise I agree with your suggestion. This
railing position would reduce the possibility of any new barriers (trellises, flags,
plants etc.) being put up on the deck to capture our view corridor
I would also like to see the eastern half of the patio cover (roughly 12'X 2'
1(') roofed over as shown on Mr. Butler's drawings submitted to the Building
Department. This would help to reduce the possibility of the railing being illegally
moved out again at some future date.
Should Mr. Butler not support this compromise and attempt to argue for the
deck/patio cover dividing line for the railing to be further east toward my house,
then I strongly recommend that none of the new patio cover be used as a deck
extension. Given the unfortunate circumstances of this entire issue, which we
are all too familiar with, I feel that this compromise position is more then fair to
Mr. Butler and, frankly, more than he deserves.
\r D
Attachments
Xcs David Groverman- Building Department
Gilbert Wong - Public Works Department
Mi
05/02/02 THU 13:51 FAX. 1 970 468 5264
7`
�t
d�
y�3
d
I' y
Lral
J
0
X
it
d
S
r
0
Y
S
A
v
o
s
0
a It
u
a 'r
d �
. s
C � j
� 4
� S �
ro
� a
2tp
¢J 003
G
05/02/102 THU 13:51 FAX 1 970 468 5264
vo
4
9004
21
Rc�_ t' 'rD BY
April 10, 2002 PLANNIN^ r_n )=PA.RTM
Clrr ACT
Mr. Jay Garcia AM AF'R. 0 2IX12 PM
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Modification Permit No. MD2002 -018
(PA2002 -037)
911 West Bay Avenue, Balboa, CA
Dear Mr. Garcia:
In April 2000, Mr. Robert Butler applied to the Planning Department to build a patio cover on the
front side of his house at 911 West Bay Avenue. According to the drawings, this new structure
would have an outwardly sloping (toward West Bay Ave) shingled roof In their letter dated May
10, 2000, the Planning Department approved Mr. Butler's request, but specifically noted that "the
patio cover shall not be used as an extension of the existing second floor deck ..: ' (Condition
No. 3).
Construction commenced about May 1, 2001 and it became immediately apparent that the
horizontal beams were of sufficient strength to support a deck.
In my letter to Mr. Charles Spence of the Planning Department dated May 5, 2001,1 noted my
concern that this "patio cover" would soon be used as a deck extension which would seriously
impact our view of the beach and bay. I also pointed out that the eastward extension of the new
structure (toward my house) was approximately four feet more than had been approved by the
Planning Department. This unapproved four foot extension was subsequently removed.
On October 6, 2001, Mr. Butler and his contractor commenced work on moving the railing from
the original deck to the outside edge (toward West Bay Avenue) of the "patio cover ", thereby
making the patio cover into a deck extension. This was done in total disregard of the Planning
Department's conditions of approval. It is my understanding that Mr. Butler was subsequently
served with "citations" requiring him to move the railing back to its original position.
Since there is an existing two -story house directly in front of our house, our beach and bay views
are to the northwest which puts us in direct conflict with Mr. Butler's deck extension. Most if
not all, of the Modification Committee have visited Mr. Butler's and my houses and can
appreciate that the deck extension railing does have a significant impact on our views.
Therefore, we request that the Modification Committee deny Mr. Butler's request to retain the
deck extension.
Sincerely,
r�
Michael R. Clary
c lDc-, %&)e%4-tat hie.
Apr 09 02 08:50a
Blair T. Bryant
001 [949] 675 -7295
y vs1
U.:
Blair T. Bryant
P.O. Box 4066, Newport Beach, California 926614066
Sent via FAX: (949) 644 -3250
April 9, 2001
Re: Modification Permit No. MD 2002 -018
(PA 2002 -037)
911 West Bay Avenue, Balboa, CA
Mr. Jay Garcia
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Garcia:
The Building Department, Planning Department, Building Inspectors, Code Enforcement,
City Attorney, and Modification Committee all enforce Newport Beach zoning and building
codes.
The deck built over the last year at 911 West Bay Avenue thwarts the City's building codes
and the City's processes.
I request your committee uniformly enforce the established Newport Beach building codes,
regulations, and process and thus deny the above referenced modification permit.
Sincerely,
Blair T. Bryant
.�i
p.1
Zq
Exhibit No. 4
Photographs submitted
by the applicant
31
�yoTo S�owii�G- Pte°
�� ���oRE
®Sows v.�v�R ►'1 �►�r/
�4'��R ��iST�G�,4 -�IDN
�l� �f T ��� '�7��
)jI
—
oilri.
� r
I e
I
} r
I
S
G
i
t
E
,
V
1
,t
t
F r ,
'' x
JZ
W Ak
t;t
!1f i
"I
P � f
i
a
R
k
�� nl
' yy IrII,' L p
f- M_
�CA
ra
I �5
p I
R. BUTLER s�O E ENGINEERING
w 8 �
_ @ IF 9u 6ay Avenue
z .I io Ip � Nenport death, California °ss.�xwrw ur°ieP•
fi N
J `
i
i
III I
aga
b
y9F
a�
aP
�6
nm
� q
Pp
N
n
P
4a�
93r
k
�� nl
' yy IrII,' L p
f- M_
�CA
ra
I �5
p I
R. BUTLER s�O E ENGINEERING
w 8 �
_ @ IF 9u 6ay Avenue
z .I io Ip � Nenport death, California °ss.�xwrw ur°ieP•
fi N
J `
'�{7
T7
PE o Ie
'I}I''
q�)p
If
:B
rat,
t
Z
�
I
i
sg
at
I UT FR
- --
%ABLE E�r+owecx_aNa
HnY A uc ",a,uv%r"
I L [ H ch, CAI P ma
1
'�{7