HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetherholt Residence (PA2002-102)a Parr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item:
Staff Person:
Appeal Period:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Wetherholt Residence (PA2002 -102)
217 30th Street
September 19, 2002
2
James Campbell
(949) 644 -3210
14 days after date of
action
SUMMARY: A Variance request for 3 separate aspects of the proposed addition to an
existing two -story residential structure: to exceed the floor area limit, to
exceed the established maximum building height of 24 feet by 3 feet 3
inches associated with adding a third level to the existing structure, and to
continue to provide only I on -site parking space for the residence. The
subject property is located at 217 30th Street.
ACTION: Deny Variance No. 2002 -005 pursuant to the findings attached as Exhibit
No. 1.
APPLICANT: Mr. Brion Jeannette, Newport Beach
LOCATION: The residential lot on the north side of 30s' Street abutting the loading area
for Albertson's grocery store.
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 130, of the Lake Tract
GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential
ZONING
DISTRICT: SP — 6 (R -2)
Introduction and Background
The applicant requests approval of a Variance application which, if approved, would authorize a
third floor addition to an existing single family residence. The proposed addition exceeds the
24/28 height limit, and floor area limit, and does not provide the minimum required parking. The
applicant has prepared a justification letter and pictures for consideration (Exhibit No. 1).
The lot was created through the approval of the Lake Tract, which was recorded in 1905. Staff
research concluded that the existing residence was completed in 1964 and there has been no other
approval granted for the property since.
0, 200 400 r.eet V,
GI ITY 'MAP
Variance No. 2002-005 (PA2002-102)
217 30th Street
Current Development:
Two-story residential structure
To the north:
Multi-tenant retail and service commercial center including the Albertson's
grocery store
To the east:
Both residential and commercial uses
To the south:
Residential uses across 30 Street
To the west:
Residential uses extending to Balboa Boulevard
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002-102)
September 19, 2002
Page 2 of 10
Site Overview
The Wetherholt's property is unusual in size and shape when compared to typical lots along 3&
Street. Located on the north side of 30"' Street, Lot 5 is triangular in shape, and only 1,251 sq. ft.
in size. The existing two -story structure on the property is approximately 1,310 sq. ft., which is
also triangular in shape. The residence has 3 foot setbacks along the sides and a 5 foot setback on
the front. The residence has a one -car garage. A 6 -foot high wall separates the existing residence
from the abutting commercial area where the Albertson's loading dock is located.
Proiect Overview
As noted, the applicant proposes to add a third level to the existing two -story residence that
would exceed the base height limit of 24 feet by 3 feet 3 inches. The addition includes a new
master bedroom, closet, bath and deck facing 30`s Street. Additional parking is not proposed. The
first and second level will remain the same although a portion of the second floor will be
modified to provide a stairway to the third floor. The floor area distribution by floor is:
First Floor (existing): 692.93 sq. ft. (Entry, bedroom, bath and 1 -car garage)
Second Floor (existing): 617.72 sq. ft. (Great room, kitchen, bedroom, and bath)
Third Floor (new): 499.03 sq. ft. (Master bedroom suite)
Total Area: 1,810 sq. ft.
Analysis
General Plan & Local Coastal Program Land Use Designations
The General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan both designate the property as Two -
Family Residential. The proposed project lot complies with this designation as it is an addition to
an existing single - family residence.
The proposed project does not comply with the conditions of the Categorical Exclusion granted
to the City in 1977 by the Coastal Commission. The Categorical Exclusion exempts residential
projects that do not abut the bay or ocean from Coastal Commission review provided they
comply with the floor area limit requirements and provide 2 parking spaces. If the project were
to be approved, a Coastal Development Permit is required before the City can issue a building
permit.
Zoning Code Compliance
The property is within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan # 6. The land use
map for Cannery Village designates the site as R -2. As the project is an addition to a single
family residence, the project complies with the designation. The project complies with applicable
setback requirements as shown in the following table:
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 3 of 10
Setbacks
Required
Provided
Front:
5 ft.
5 ft.
Sides:
3 ft.
3 ft.
Rear:
N/A
10 ft.
The project, as indicated by the previous variance description, deviates from the zoning code in
three areas: floor area, height and parking. One additional deviation was discovered after the
public hearing notice was sent. The project does not conform to the open space requirement.
1. Floor Area
The maximum allowable floor area is two times the buildable area. The buildable area is defined
as the lot area minus the setbacks. The following table shows the pertinent development
characteristics:
Lot area:
1,251 s . ft.
Setback area:
524
Buildable area:
727
Floor area limit:
1,454
Proposed floor area:
1,810
Area in excess:
356
The Commission has used two primary comparison techniques while considering requests to
exceed the floor area limit. The first method is based upon the concept of "reasonable setbacks."
Setbacks that are considered reasonable for the subject lot are assigned to the lot. The buildable
area is identified and resulting floor area limit is calculated. This technique is more useful when
large setbacks are required that are typically the subject of a companion Modification Permit
application. In this case, staff believes the existing required setbacks are reasonable and this
comparison technique is not appropriate. The second method is the floor area to lot area ratio
comparison to other typical lots in the area. Typical lots in this area of Cannery Village are 25
feet wide by 95 feet deep. Setbacks for R -2 lots in Cannery Village/McFadden Square are 5 feet
in the front, 3 feet on the sides and 5 feet to the rear alley. The following table shows the
comparison of the subject lot with a typical lot:
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 4 of 10
Typical lot
Subject Lot
Lot Area:
2,375 sf
1,251 sf
Setbacks: Front:
Side:
Rear or alley:
5 ft.
3 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
3 ft.
N/A
Setback Area:
760 sf
524 sf
Buildable Area:
1,615 sf
727 sf
Floor Area Limit:
3,230 sf
1,454 sf
Floor Area/Lot Area
1.36
1.16
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 4 of 10
Using this floor area to lot area comparison, it would suggest that the lot has a disadvantage.
Applying the typical 1.36 ratio to the subject lot would suggest a floor area of 1,701 sq. ft. (1.36
X 1,251 sq. ft. = 1,701 sq. ft.). The floor area proposed exceeds this value by 109 sq. ft. and the
floor area to lot area ratio of the proposed project is 1.45. Reducing the project by 109 sq. ft.
would reduce the third level by approximately 22% which occupies approximately 345 sq. ft.
2. Building Height
Alt R -2 properties are within the 24/28 height limitation zone established by Chapter 20.65
(Height Limits). Twenty -four feet is the base limit that structures are allowed to reach by right.
Twenty -eight feet is the upper limit that a structure can achieve through the issuance of a Use
Permit. The proposed height of the addition will be 27 feet, 3 inches above natural grade, which
exceeds the 24 -foot height limit by 3 feet, 3 inches. The project is below the upper height limit of
28 feet and below the upper limit of 29 feet that can be achieved with the peak of a sloping roof.
The project is being considered as a Variance request as opposed to a Use Permit because it does
not meet the criteria for approval of a Use Permit to exceed the base height limit. Central finding
of a height Use Permit is that a project must increase public visual open space or public views.
The project does not exhibit this quality given the design. The size, shape and location of the
property are more prominent factors to consider as grounds for possibly approving a Variance
request.
The third level occupies approximately 500 sq. ft., which is 69% of the footprint of the residence.
The third level is planned to have a standard 8 -foot ceiling. Nearby residential buildings are 1
and 2 stories. The site backs up to the rear loading area of the Albertson's grocery store which is
a larger building that appears to be close to 30 feet in height. The triangular shape of the
property and its size, with the strict application of setbacks, limits the allowable buildable area
and floor area. With a limited buildable area, increasing the size of the residence can only be
accomplished by increasing the height or by reducing or eliminating the setbacks.
The primary feature that is allowed, by right, to be above 24 feet and below 29 feet is the peak of
a sloping roof. The portion of the roof that peaks above the height limit is generally 1/3 to 1/2 the
entire roof area and is located down the middle of the lot. In this case, the entire third level
exceeds 24 feet and the relative mass of this area occupies close to the entire buildable area and
is closer to property lines as a result.
The only circumstance where staff could support the increased height as proposed would be in
association with the provision of two required parking spaces. If this were done, the required
two-car garage or carport would occupy a significant portion of the first floor. Depending upon
the design, the entry, bedroom and or staircase would be eliminated or reconfigured. The livable
area of the residence would then be below average and since there is no other area to add on to
the residence except for going up, deviating from the height standard might be justifiable.
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 5 of 10
3. Parking
The existing residence has a 1 car garage and Chapter 20.66 (Parking and Loading) requires 2
off -street parking spaces for a single family residence. The parking shortfall is considered legal,
nonconforming as the residence was permitted with one parking space.
The applicant has created three graphic exhibits that are on sheet A -1 of the plans that are
intended to show that accommodating a second parking space is problematic. The first drawing
shows a two car tandem configuration with two 20 -foot deep stalls. The depth exceeds minimum
standards by 5 feet 6 inches. If the minimum depth of 34 feet 6 inches is used, the corner of the
second parking space would extend beyond the existing building wall into the side yard, but not
as far as shown on the exhibit. The second drawing shows a typical two car garage. The width
and depth used by the architect again exceed minimum standards. Using the minimum interior
dimensions for a 2-car garage (17 feet 6 inches wide by 18 feet 6 inches deep), a 6 inch corner of
the space would intersect the opposing building wall. These first two options take away a
significant portion of the first floor area. The third drawing is a lift alternative that appears to be
limited by the second floor, a driveway slope and a 3 -foot drop below the cars. The lift option
appears to be predicated upon storing the first car to enter the lift in the upper position. If the first
car were stored in the lower position, the excavation below the residence would have to be
increased in order to avoid modification to the structural members of second floor. The applicant
has not demonstrated that this change to the lift alternative is infeasible.
Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code limits the expansion of
nonconforming structures when they do not conform to parking requirements. Specifically,
Section 20.62.060(A) allows the addition of a new room provided there is no net increase n
habitable rooms upon the approval of a Modification Permit subject to floor area limits. The
addition proposed includes a new master bedroom and is by definition a habitable room. By not
providing the additional parking space and exceeding the floor area limit, the project is
inconsistent with Section 20.62.060.
The intent of the Chapter 20.62 is to `limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses
to the maximum extent feasible, to establish the criteria under which they may be continued or
possible expanded, and to bring these structures and uses into conformity in an equitable,
reasonable and timely manner, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of property
owners." The chapter establishes the conditions under which a residential use can be expanded
without complying with parking requirements. Project approval, without providing the necessary
off -street parking and allowing the project to exceed the Floor Area Limit, is inconsistent with
the intent of Chapter 20.62. The property owner's constitutional right to use the property for
residential purposes will not be infringed by project denial as the existing 1,310 square foot
residence is allowed to remain indefinitely and is a substantial property right.
4. Open Space
Chapter 20.10 (Residential Districts) of the Zoning Code contains residential development
standards. Specifically, Section 20.10.040(C) requires a cubic volume of open space to be
provided within the buildable area of the lot within the 24 -foot height limit. The minimum cubic
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 6 of 10
volume is calculated by multiplying the buildable width of the lot by the height limit by 6 feet.
The average buildable width of the lot is 15 feet. The required open space is calculated as
follows: 15 ft. X 24 ft. X 6 ft. = 2,160 cubic feet. Areas to be counted as open space must be
open on at least two sides and must be 6 feet in any direction and may be used for outdoor living
space. The only area meeting the definition for open space is the third level deck which is 6 feet
6 inches by 16 feet (104 sq. ft.). The deck surface is 6 feet below the 24 -foot height limit;
therefore, the volume of open space is calculated as follows: 104 sq. ft. X 6 ft. = 624 cubic feet.
The project does not comply with the open space requirement by.providing only 28.9% of the
standard.
The existing residence provides open space above the roof. The existing roof is 18 feet 6 inches
in height and the entire buildable area above this height and below the 24 -foot height limit is
open. The volume of this space is 3,998.5 cubic feet (5 feet 6 inches X 727 sq. ft. — 3,998.5 cubic
feet). The project will make the conforming situation nonconforming. As indicated previously,
this deficiency was not mentioned in the application and was not discovered prior to the
publication of the public hearing notice. Should the Planning Commission chose to approve the
project as designed, the hearing must be continued to allow for adequate noticing of this
additional Variance.
Variance Findings
The Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission make certain findings for Variances. These
findings are listed and discussed below:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or
use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally
to land, buildings andlor uses in the same district
The triangular shape of the property and its small size are valid factors to consider in this request.
These factors are not generally applicable to other properties in the same district. Staff believes
that these are relevant to the floor area request. The size and shape of the lot coupled with the
strict application of the parking standards affects the ability to provide a minimum living area,
possibly supporting the request to exceed height. Although the size and shape of the lot make it
difficult to provide the required parking, the additional area proposed, which includes a bedroom,
will increase the occupancy of the property. The increased occupancy heightens the demand for
parking in a neighborhood where street parking is scarce.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
The granting of the application may not be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant. The applicant presently enjoys the right to use the
existing 1,310 sq. ft. residence. This two story, two bedroom, 2 bath home with 1 -car garage
constitutes a substantial property right. Granting of the Variance may not be necessary for the
preservation or enjoyment of this existing substantial property right. However, the Commission
has approved additional floor area to create three bedroom homes based upon a finding that they
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 7 of 10
would be more compatible with the area. These cases were in Corona del Mar and the lots were
generally 1.5 times the lot area of the subject lot.
3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in
the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Granting this application is not consistent with the purpose or intent of the development
standards required pursuant Chapter 20.10 (Residential Districts) and the limits of expansion of a
residential structure without providing minimum required parking established by Chapter 20.62
(Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code. Granting of the Variance request to
allow project to deviate from 3 aspects of the Zoning Code (floor area, building height and
parking) and is considered the granting of special privilege that is not enjoyed by other properties
in the identical zoning district.
4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular
case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the
particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood.
Granting the request will create a sizable house on a small property and, if approved, could be
detrimental to property in the area and the general welfare of the City. The proposed residence
will be taller than any other residence in the area, where the area is completely flat and of similar
elevation.
The impact of granting the excess height, given the design of the project, would increase the
mass of the structure in close proximity to the sideyards to the detriment of the abutting property
owner. The third level. is approximately 69% of the buildable area of the lot and the amount of
area that would exceed the 24 -foot height limit by 3 feet 3 inches is viewed by staff as excessive.
The addition will have a detrimental impact to abutting properties due to its size and height. The
increased area includes a third bedroom, which will create increased demands for street parking
to the detriment of the area, especially if the residence were to be rented out to several unrelated
adults. Increased demand for parking in an area where street parking availability is limited is
detrimental to the area.
Summary
The request to exceed the floor area, if viewed independently, seems reasonable as the requested
area is not large and only creates a 1,810 sq. ft. residence which is smaller than average for
newer residences. However, the request does exceed the floor area to land area ratio typical for
the vicinity by 109 sq. ft. The request to exceed the height limit, when viewed independently, is
also reasonable as the lot shape and size limits the buildable area. Variances for height are
usually considered due to topographic reasons (sloping properties) and the subject property is
flat. If an addition to the residence is deemed necessary for the enjoyment of this property,
exceeding the height limit may be necessary. Another way to increase the floor area for a
possible addition is to reduce setbacks and allow construction to encroach within the setbacks.
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 8 of 10
Adding to the residence within the setback would achieve limited area and would be difficult to
integrate within the existing floor plan. It might be easier to construct anew if reducing or
eliminating setbacks is considered a better way to increase the floor area of the existing
residence. The deviation to the open space requirement impacts the residence more than it does
surrounding properties, in staff's opinion, although additional open space would assist to off-
setting the additional height requested. The parking deviation is a fundamental flaw in the
project, in staffs viewpoint, as approval with only one parking space while exceeding the floor
area is inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Code. Finally, the additional floor area can
'accommodate increased occupancy of the residence, which creates increased parking demands.
The parking shortfall in the area is a significant concern. Although the size, shape and location of
the lot would suggest that the lot is burdened, staff believes that the project as a whole, with all
four deviations, simply adds up to too much construction on a small lot.
Environmental Review
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This
exemption allows the addition up to 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition. The
addition comprises approximately 38% of the addition.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the Variance application because of the inability to make all the
mandatory findings necessary to approve a Variance. The findings are attached as Exhibit No. 2.
The Commission has the option to take another course of action that could include project approval
or approval of a reduced project if it believes that the each of the 4 findings for approval can be
made. Should the Commission wish to approve the project as designed, continuing the item to the
October 3, 2002 meeting is necessary so that adequate noticing can be accomplished.
Should the Commission wish to modify the project, staff suggests that the Commission provide
direction to the applicant as to what aspects of the Variance, and to what degree, the Commission
might consider acceptable. If this course is desirable, staff recommends a continuance to a date
acceptable to the applicant to facilitate a redesigned project in accordance with the Commission's
direction.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 9 of 10
Exhibits
Applicant's justification letter
2. Findings for denial
3. Plans
Wetherholt Variance (PA2002 -102)
September 19, 2002
Page 10 of 10
'a a
May 29, 2002
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Variance Request
217 3e St.
Newport Beach
CS
&-Associates, Inca
ARCHITECTURE
For the following reasons, we respectfully request variances to height, buildable area,
and parking to allow the Wetherholts to enjoy the same property rights as their
neighbors:
What special circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings?
The subject lot was created in 1905 by the City - its shape dictated by an adjacent
railroad track. The triangular shape of the lot is particularly difficult, as well as the
substandard size in comparison to the rest of the neighborhood. Its location next -door to
• commercially zoned piece of property, especially the non - public, unkempt back -side of
• large grocery store, provides additional challenges. The current Master Bedroom is
level with the cabs of the big rigs pulling in at all hours of the day and night to make
deliveries— privacy, noise, and fumes are constant nuisances. When the residential lot
was created, there was not a commercial property adjacent to it.
2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights?
The house as it exists conforms to all zoning requirements — including buildable area,
square footage, and height — with the exception of parking. However, when the City
created the lot in 1905 as part of the Lake Tract, 2-car families were not common.
Today, that same.lot can not accommodate 2 cars within the constraints of the City
required setbacks. The typical 25' x 95' lot in the neighborhood provides 3,040 sf of
buildable area. Our lot provides only 1454 sf of buidable area. In order to get the
Master Bedroom up to an acceptable level, as far away as possible from the loading
dock activities, we are requesting a 3n'story to accommodate a modest bedroom, closet .
and bathroom, and have added a deck to minimize the vertical face of the street
elevation. This results in a variance to the maximum buildable area (an addition of
355.68 sf), to the average height limit (an increase of 39 "), and the parking to keep the
one -car garage as originally designed.
ENERGY EFFICIENT ARCHITECTURE
® 470 Old Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA - 92663 • Tel 949.645.5854 • Fax 949.645.5983
Members AIA & NCARB • email @customarchitecture.com
14
3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood?
This is not a precedence setting request. There are no other lots of this shape and size
in such close proximity to a commercial use anywhere else in the neighborhood.
Additionally, no one has any view over our property. The height of Albertson's is 28' -6"
to.the top of the mechanical equipment, we would be 18 ". under that height. We are only
asking for a variance to exceed the average height limit of 24' by 39 ", but will remain
under the maximum height limit of 29' by 21 ". Due to the small size of the house in both
square footage and footprint, the proposed residence will not. be detrimental to the site or .
to the neighboring houses. It will still remain considerably smaller than most, if not all,
the other houses on the street. Though the lot is zoned as R -2, this will continue to be a
single family residence, and therefore contain fewer occupants with fewer cars to park.
Thank.you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any
questions.
bn ncerely,
S. Jeanr
Architect, AIA
Brion S. Jeannette & Associates, Inc. 5
ARCHITECTURE
VIEW OUT 2ND FLOOR WINDOW. TRUCKS CAME AND GO AS LATE A5
11:30 P.M. DIESEL FUMES AND NO15E ARE CONSTANT NUISANCES.
TRUCKS DRIVE ACRO55 51DEWALK- HAVE COLLAPSED NATURAL
GAS VAULT SEVERAL TIMES NEARLY BREAKING GA5 LINE. FENCE
HA5 BEEN RUN INTO AND BROKEN.
51
VIEW OUT 2ND FLOOR OF ALBERT50N'S LOADING DOCK AND
ROTTING TRA5H.
TYPICAL GONDITION OF ALBERT5ON'S 51DEYAR0 AREA- VIEWED
FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY.
Findings for Denial
Variance No. 2002 -006
Although the subject property is triangular a
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
The applicant presently enjoys the right to u
story, two bedroom, 2 bath home with 1 -car
Granting of the Variance is not necessary fo r
substantial property right.
nd small, the granting of the application is not
of substantial property rights of the applicant.
se the existing 1,310 sq. ft. residence. This two
garage constitutes a substantial property right.
the preservation or enjoyment of this existing
2. Granting this application is not consistent with the purpose or intent of the development
standards required pursuant Chapter 20.10 (Residential Districts) and the limits of expansion
of a residential structure without providing minimum required parking established by
Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code. Granting of the
Variance request to allow project to deviate from 3 aspects of the Zoning Code (floor area,
building height and parking) and is considered the granting of special privilege that is not
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zoning district.
3. Granting the request will create a sizable and taller than average residence on a small
property to the detriment to the property in the area and the general welfare of the City. The
impact of the granting of excess height given the design of the project would increase the
mass of structure in close proximity to the sideyards to the detriment of the abutting property
owner. The third level is approximately 69% of the buildable area of the lot and this amount
of area that would exceed the 24 -foot height limit by 3 feet 3 inches is excessive. The
addition will have a detrimental impact to abutting properties due to its size and height. The
parking deviation will create increased demands for street parking to the detriment of the area
especially if the residence were to be rented out to several unrelated adults. Increased
demand for parking in an area where street parking availability is limited is detrimental to the
area.
M
mmmgg)rr,
;�
[ &�
!| ||
) § ; ;, ; ; ; ;•m
Fit
<
)
[! 7
[� .[)
�[
f
a
M
� \y
\}
20TH
�
\
�
.
......���-
_._ .
R#
!@ §)§
iR
§
\
!
7
!,�
(
h
f
}
!| ||
) § ; ;, ; ; ; ;•m
Fit
<
)
[! 7
[� .[)
�[
f
a
M
mG:
OF jFE
/T_-_ Z� _ ._
`! RA% ,M
_ +OKT !
�
aG
20TH
.
......���-
_._ .
.
iR
§
\
\\
h
f
!
mG:
OF jFE
/T_-_ Z� _ ._
`! RA% ,M
_ +OKT !
�
aG
i i P 2 g WETHERHOLT RESIDENC
D 8 3 Y 3 9 s AS —BUILT FLOOR- ennette end Asso9Letea, Inc. 21T BOTM STREET
ti (� § )}p d ROOF PLANS ,-w„ �„ �,Yr .," "ATE _ NEWPORT BEACH. GA
7
ntltmj%�-AS -BUILT EXTERIOR rTi sennetto d Asso i ts kc. WETHERHO a - A HITECTT E 21i 9a N d ELEVATIONS NEWPORTE
H, OA
p
N
,
r
1
s
N
B
❑
°
1
r
i
0
z
8
e
El
r u A g�X
yl
Z
A �
r
,
�f
z
r
g
D 8
rn
z
z
.
8
0
ntltmj%�-AS -BUILT EXTERIOR rTi sennetto d Asso i ts kc. WETHERHO a - A HITECTT E 21i 9a N d ELEVATIONS NEWPORTE
H, OA
\ O
O _ _
` � x
` gle
'l� ,
m d-
F
N '
M
O ,04.
z -
v
A I A \
I
Z \ I
\\ I
\ I
I
P
\ I
\ I
O \ I
c y \ I
R RF \ I
4 \v
A ) s § - 4 - ; 3 - NEV FLOOR b F%M Mia d Asaociarc-t EC�xqE .
ROOF FLANS A
31T BOTH STRLeT
NEWPORT 5EAGH, GA
E%19rIXa K�JV --�
I I I
I
I'. I
exianw Y Tm' ❑ '. I. ' I
3 N e ❑ � .:.I � I
I I
x $
I I
h r IA I I
1
I I
o I
I I
I I
I I
I I .
I I
I � I
—� I I
El
I � I
I � I
I
i
I I
I
I =
.�o
I 13
I I 13
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I i
� I
8
Q G° G G G x
3 I
rR rvavo:m iur cros �rt.i
a� ggi
� d n ��, ���� �g dig �•
� u �
Exbipl5 a1p.Y1
PP�PL6ED NNi. PNi FPT Xi,
WETHERHOLT ftE51DEN
C
NEW EXTERIOR Bn`orMeennatt
ELEVATIONS Ali 30TH STREET 1 � F b , 1, $ 11 1 !
A .
NEWPORT SEAGH, GA
3�p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I.'
f
��TI77
❑ I
I
A .
NEWPORT SEAGH, GA