Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEXCEPTION REQUESTS OF SECTION 20.87.140ATY OF NEWPORT BETCH COUNCIL MEMBERS o`ti `p�\ Gay G�i �,� Motion All Ayes MINUTES April 11, 1988 with a reasonable solution, which everyone feels is appropriate, and further, with the knowledge that the improvement plans for the traffic signal, etc., will come back before the ouncil for final approval. In nclusion, he stated that the longer t I s item is delayed, the more co licated it becomes. Moti was made to continue this item to April 1988. Richard oughton, 46 Balboa Coves, President of the Balboa Coves Homeowners Associatio , addressed the Council on the status f the Coves, advising that the resident have enjoyed a quiet and anonymous ex i tence for almost 50 years and their low rofile has afforded them a near zero cri a rate. He stated that the homeowners a e not really opposed to the traffic signs , but they do feel that some of their concerns have not been addressed, and in fact, are being ignored. They under tand the magnitude and importance of Hoa Hospital, but in these changing times t ey cannot allow any injury to their co unity. He discussed the widening o Pacific Coast Highway and the removal o street parking, and the problems hey felt it will create. He stated tha the traffic signal specifically "spotlig ts" their community and they feel they dill lose the safety of their anonymous status. He stated that with the increas in sound due to the traffic signalthe problems that will be created because of no parking on Pacific Coast Highway„ and the spotlighting of their entrance because of the signal, etc., they ha e a number of concerns which they feel nelds additional mitigation to protect \\ themselves. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the motion was voted on, and J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from the Planning Department regarding a request of'JUDZT_H HOME, owner of 307 ISLAND AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 20'.87.140 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, which recjuires, tit `6ufTdings on lots which contain a greater number of dwelling units than Tfmitjted by Chapter-20 of Volume 42 — Page 136 CalTrans E/ PCH Zoning/ 307 Is Av (94) x_ TITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES G��G4P Gt�'P92 G 'y� �� '76 y y0 April 11, 1988 ..., , FN 4P F P the Municipal Code, be altered to conform to_ the requirements of the Code within'60 years from the date of original construction, was presented. Letter with attachments from Hillary F. Thamer, Associate Vice President of Coldwell Banker, representative of Judith Homme, was presented. The City Manager summarized the staff report noting that on the subject lot, a dwelling unit was constructed in 1912 and another unit in 1946. Bgth dwellings were constructed when the property was located in the R-2 District and permitted a maximum of two dwelling units on the site. In 1949 the City changed the zoning from R-2 to R-1 which made the dwellings a nonconforming use. In 1980, the City Council adopted an ordinance which placed a 60-year amortization period upon a structure that was nonconforming because the zoning had been changed. He stated that the question before the Council is whether to apply the 60-year amortization period on the structure built in 1912, or the unit built in 1946. Frank Walker, applicant, addressed the Council and stated that he closed escrow on the subject property three weeks ago. He stated that the subject property is one and a half lots, containing 3,150 sq. ft., which have two separate buildings on the property; the main building has three bedrooms and two baths. Charlotte Petersen, Tarbell Realtors, addressed the Council and stated that the second unit was legally permitted when constructed and she did not feel it fair to have that right taken away. She stated that the property is in excellent condition and she would urge the Council to let it remain as such. The City Attorney stated that he did not feel the Council could enforce the subject ordinance under either interpretation because the ordinance is triggered from the date of original construction and suggested the ordinance be revised to "trigger" from the point at which the property becomes nonconforming. Volume: 42 - Page 137 Zoning/ 307 Is Av CPY OF NEWPORT BETCH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES 14 April 11, 1988 INf1CY Motion x . In view of the foregoing,,motion.was Zoning/ All Ayes made to grant ythe _exemptionto 307 Is Av direct the staff to report..back in six months as to the feasibility of deleting the 60-year "amoitization­_peiiod from the ......�__ ... sting adjourned at 8:50 p.m., in memory of hn Macnab, developer; community leader; and past President of the Newport Harbor Area ember of Commerce, who passed away on Ach 28, 1988. agenda for this meeting was posted Thursday, April 7, 1988 at 9:15 a.m., the City Hall Bulletin Board located t1 de of the City of Newport Beach nistration Building. Volume 42 - Page 138 City Council Meeting April 11, 1988 Agenda Item No. J-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request For Exemption From Section 20 87.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code LOCATION: Lot 93, Subdivision of Block A, East Newport, located at 307 Island Avenue, on the westerly side of Island Avenue between East Bay Avenue and Edgewater Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R-1 APPLICANT: Judith Homme, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Description of Requested Exemption This item involves a request for an exemption from the requirements of Section 20.87.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which requires that buildings on lots which contain a greater number of dwelling units than permitted by Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code, be altered to conform to the requirements of the Code within sixty years from the date of original construction. In accordance with the provisions of the above mentioned section, the City Council may consider exemptions to this requirement upon the request of the affected property owner. Suggested Action If desired, either grant or deny the requested exemption. Back rs ound On May 14, 1979, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1804 which established a 30 year amortization for residential structures containing legal dwelling units which exceeded the allowable density permitted by the Zoning District in which they were located. Subsequently, on January 7, 1980, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1830 (Amendment No. 538) which changed the amortization period from 30 years to 60 years from the date of construction. Said change was for the purpose of allowing the full economic life of the nonconforming structures and related uses to be realized before they were required to be removed or altered. TO: Planning Commission-2. The Planning Department first became aware of the subject property in November of 1979 at which time it was determined from information obtained through the County Assessor's Office, that there were two dwelling units on the site which was located in the R-1 District. Said information also indicated that one of the dwelling units was constructed in 1912 and the second dwelling unit was constructed in 1946. Both dwellings were constructed when the property was located in the R-2 District and permitted a maximum of two dwelling units on the site. The applicant purchased the subject property in 1983 without a Residential Building Records (RBR) check. Therefore, at the time of purchase, she was not aware that one of the existing dwelling units exceeded 60 years of age and was required to be removed from the site, unless said requirement was waived by the City Council. It should be noted that if an RBR had been requested, the Planning Department would have provided such information prior to the applicant's purchase of the property. Inasmuch as the existing property owner is attempting to sell the property and has now requested an RBR, staff has informed the property owner of the above requirements. Analysis The subject property contains two detached dwelling units. The oldest and larger of the two was constructed in 1912 and contains two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and bathroom. The smaller dwelling, which was constructed in 1946, contains one bedroom, a living room, kitchen and bathroom. Both structures are in fair condition and do not represent a detriment to the neighborhood (see attached photographs). Only one open, nonconforming parking space is provided onsite, where the Municipal Code currently requires 3 parking spaces for two dwelling units on a lot, with at least two of said spaces to be covered. As indicated in the attached letter from the applicant's representative, it is the applicant's contention that the 60 year amortization provision should be applied to the unit built in 1946, thereby establishing a date of compliance of 2006. Although such an interpretation may be reasonable, considering it was the construction of the 1946 dwelling unit which established two dwelling units on the site, the language in the Municipal Code specifies "the date of original construction." It is staff's opinion that such language is confusing at best, inasmuch as it is unclear if the date of original construction applies to the original dwelling unit or to the second unit which established the nonconforming condition of the property. It is staff's further opinion that a reasonable interpretation in this case, would be to use the date of construction of the dwelling unit which established the nonconforming second dwelling unit on the site. Should the City Council concur in this opinion, no action would be necessary at this time, and staff would so interpret the existing language of the Code. i 0 T0: Planning Commission-3. It should also be noted that the Code Enforcement Officer has identified that one of the dwelling units maintains an illegally converted attic space which appears to be used for human habitation. Should the City Council approve the requested exemption or determine that the date of compliance is appropriately the year 2006, it is recommended that the applicant be required to return the attic space to its original condition. Proposed Deletion of the 60 Year Amortization At its meeting of March 10, 1988, the Planning Commission considered Amendment No. 659 which involved a request to amend Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to delete the 60 year amortization provision. Such a deletion was suggested by staff in conjunction with the Planning Commission's consideration of a companion Amendment No. 657, which proposed to rezone the R-4 portions of the Balboa Peninsula. It was staff's opinion that the 60 year amortization provision would become a significant hardship for property owners, without contributing significantly to the removal of nonconforming dwelling units. To date, the City has not required the removal or alteration of a structure which exceeded the allowable number of dwelling units on a lot. However, Section 20.83.070 of the Municipal Code does provide that structural alterations to a nonconforming building shall require the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code by the Modifications Committee. Any such approval may be appealed or reviewed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. It should be noted that no action was taken on either amendment application, inasmuch as the Planning Commission decided to defer the proposed zone change to later in the year, when they are scheduled to consider the proposed General Plan update. However, should the City Council wish to consider the deletion of the 60 year amortization provision, it may wish to direct the Planning Commission to consider Amendment No. 659 immediately. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D.jKEWIVER, Director OVEXIBy W. filliam Ward Senior Planner Attachments for City Council only: Vicinity Map Letter from applicant's representative with attachments Photographs of Existing Residential Development 'SEE MAP 'rvJ. 9 4100 ar eN 17 /..+�bN. TfAAVOANrA Ai m AAM N:APIi1AAV M.• NUA A fAiM ., NMt4 WA0'1 \ \� ya z •t3• R\•2�N s f<\'vim P < R 3 q z +o R-I \ \\ R•3 h q,Z '+o- R "A- R-1 -eo• \ \ \ 4alk'90y R'3 R12 OS R'I R•3 +o RyR�3 "IC R-3 R-3 O CEAN u 45, E A C h' RYi4Evge� R•I I <qN0 A \ as b DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA AaRwuLTU11AL RESIDENTIAL R'A MULT PLEESDENTIAL —3 N149 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLE% RESIDENTIAL-2 LIDMTp1RdAI GENERAL COMMERCIALNp, iD! REST11 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL r..NNINO DISTRICTS M-1 MANUTA=RIND 1*�'�y' U UNCLASSIFIED DEC• M. law ?Rof'oSED oycamr ioN - 307 154AND AVON09 : MAP No. A MEMKH a THE 4EMV9 FlNAKLLIL NEMONK COLOWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES POST OFFICE BOX 8566 COAST HIGHWAY AT AVOCADO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92850 (714)644.9060 February 26, 1988 To City Council: As the representative of Judith Homme, Owner of a single family hone and separate unit located at 307 Island, I an sukoitting a petition under the "60 year grandfather" clause (ordinance 1579 Subject 2 1974 - 20.87.140) to allow the "as is" on the 2nd unit. The original home was built in 1912. The completely separate "uni.t" was permitted and built in 1946. Because of the transfer of real property and the compliance to the cities law on city inspection before transfer, it was brought to the attention of Mrs. Home that part of the, unit must be eliminated to comply. It is our contention that the permit allowing the unit would have a compliance date of 2006. We look for an agreeable solution to this rather important problem. Very Sincerely, Vilary F. T Associate Vice President RP/jh Enclosure of copy of assessors work sheet shaming permit #6939. RECEIYE[9��C MAR2119M +� Ctrr 0!. M:I S SENT TO' ❑ IMayar 0 Courl P= ❑ Manager ❑ lt:tarney ❑ Birg. Dir. a G°nS Dir. ❑ P. R Dir. tanning Dir. O Police thief [7 R.W. Dir ❑ other �UIWING DFSQtIMON B -LANK ,D-- ;"'• ..«•.•=ct..a•na-1—=�iaR.".�eacks-�it'K- "` !--, - _ • Eat Ne. o I " Block CLASS I ZXTE •ROOF � � UGHMG In il sr tooldeftem, Cot up La I Rew. u.w lsN cr.,.tv4rw 12 _ c a�.ssK ot�etww_ eu.a —Ram PMOH i J� � «Pv« w. Gernptsdlew v.mrw > w_ TDs Trig nuter RsrrR HRATMG Sts"' rono :t Jt O GG" blw� w Rrlsk� TDr Go R@419M a^ao.o�a FOUNDATION Ia M*OOR TLVMDDiG IUH.T.IIi Joist s s Nsaba N Fiaw. ' FBATURRf WIDIMIRS coramuclION Tw Fine ck J►i PLWR sock Waal w Gas • w.b 6IyL as. ask ICaay►. -. SIW4 WALU N t' a= y `l le t cwr �Do" Id }uttT Tile hw I I I um Do" .� Rsd Roar wNt.tF«.t V= Rul Rasa Rondo HHlP y u nar. 1 Rndr. Rao or Nssi NEiPP --� Hardwood i7san 3 /) Pan FEB6 c No 7 �o chumer 0 Rs R p,..+ , S >[ R�u+ta Got }6 t ' ttaoae 2 3 •{ �lL S // 9 Dom. Al O=od 7 Lalmd Ave-' .• Me PC pf;a Aewmrt Beach MY 1 SE Twe1 tut x•.P art sisal. ► ��r p�9N� s�i-etyj: �93 95 a 94D� perce� ��-oss-2sT AtSIRENCE �/ YNrtS FKlaOOf h 'Hite Oblblwo InloNor Unodw N wW Hoof . — _ Ns,k, ✓ S�CY«yauTrpob Inf. Slo ' NApwIDotdda MNN 5010 � Khebm / � C �epoddm naNr i 2"16 rpoablo mrol C;, str OAWft lledMbtmd ALLS E W" ,V✓NDATION C.few MW t CW"do alal.Ads" �EIWn Id paint Slnlot lt.�lyi S` by Om r" BOON SIUCCO M eoNN" .►. Cr. _ « W,W .1YPow , lolo w ROOK Om SKfIIW✓ay�.t mid TMial MIS Dwbb Hardnsod TNdt todroaar Spa AdoAm� f ood A SoKdr Floor From Ways Shh fib I' M. Cod fhD Ym TO" KENASKS Laral HNM - 0 T HHEII 0 0 Fimpkm Itupp 0 Ehot. No* Cat Wtdl Cm Hoar Pored Sadk*W igry 4/"'� /y LT.U. Oaod LIONTING 56*k /j� X y /Y'�/2 Hotn.tane hdlrW . rE9.i 9 a•.: 0 FYvI Do" - AMm • 3996 (, yyl Cod 00 35e' 6 . Gad y$ air 7'p a o..ivr. l9 4 /GSs •x yN/ o ' &.VolOL 930 `bo dv low too not � 3 O j ' o: ' :SD • '1 r� ■ " 1! • —ram�,.. ® O © Q Q K. 0 e ly • 14 ly li 17 0 .� QQ Q9 0 to ST Is 0 Oy _ AVENUE i+ a �a M.M. q.61 BLK. A. EAST NEWpORT ME SU9. t'.. �.• era sr ASSESSOR'S MAP O NOTE As ^ p°"'" BOOK 48 PAGE OS PARCEL NUMBER COUNTY OF ORANGE SHOWN /N C/RGLE� ...•- FRbn(T O;F- T.Na sITE 'RkaR P01MOA! -Or- r(4E svWCT'uREs CwiTX opow PARK sma, AvTACENT To AN ALLAY) A 0 3 D % FRONT OF TNB SITE RFaR Po'RT/ON OF: Thf!~ 5TTucTuKES (wroi opet4 PAxKINC- 5;Mc8. A97TAUNT TO AN ALLF-y) 0 I_. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS '� •o y n `p�`� Motion All Ayes x MINUTES April 11, 1988 with a reasonable solution, which everyone feels is appropriate, and further, with the knowledge that the improvement plans for the traffic \hitem l, etc., will come back before the il for final approval. In usion, he stated that the longer is delayed, the more icated it becomes. Motion was made to continue this item to April 21k, 1988. Richard ughton, 46 Balboa Coves, President f the Balboa Coves Homeowners Association addressed the Council on the status o the Coves, advising that the residents have enjoyed a quiet and anonymous exis ence for almost 50 years and their low p ofile has afforded them a near zero cram rate. He stated that the homeowners ar not really opposed to the traffic signal but they do feel that some of their oncerns have not been addressed, andscreated act, are being ignored. They unded the magnitude and importance of Hoospital, but in these changing timey cannot allow any injury to their nity. He discussed the wideno Pacific Coast Highway and the remo street parking, and the prms t ey felt it will create. He stthat the traffic signal specificallyotligh a" their community and they they w 11 lose the safety of theirnymous s atus. He stated that with increase in sound due to the trc signal, he problems that will breated beca se of no parking on Pacific Coast Highway and the spotlighting of their entrance because of the signal, etc., they hav a number of concerns which they feel nee s additional mitigation to protect themselves. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the motion was voted on, and J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from the Planning Department OF THE 'buildingsson lots_ which rater number of dwelling armit'ted by Chapter 20 of Volume 42 - Page 136 CalTrans E/ PCH 307 Is Av (94) f " x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 0' c+ � G9 fG MINUTES April 11, 1988 sound wall, inasmuch as they are not responsible for the widening of Pacific oast Highway, and due to the fact that he traffic signal will not increase the n ise level based on recent studies. He a ted that they have tried to negotiate wi h Balboa Coves, but are not yet in Disc ssiit ensued, wherein it was stated by t City Manager that the proposed resol tion under consideration makes no refers ce to the proposed traffic signal, sound wall, etc., and that the improve ent plans for these items will be forth oming to the Council at a later date for anal approvel. He emphasized that the knly issue under consideration at this ti a is access to Pacific Coast Highway. Council Memb r Sansone spoke in support of continuin this item for two weeks, Indicating he felt that the residents of Balboa Coves lVve not been given the "total picturej of what is being planned by Hoag Hospital. Dennis O'Neil, a torney representing Hoag Hospital, ad reseed the Council and stated that they a requesting the rescinding of Reso ution No. 83-53 in an effort to "clean up the record" and consummate their ne tiations with CalTrans to acquire he abutter's rights to the property the spital purchased in 1984. He stated t at the cancer center is a stand-alon facility that takes its access off t main hospital campus and has nothing o do with their desire to gain access to Pacific Coast Highway. He stated they re in the process of working with t e City in developing a master plan r the future buildout of that site, but they have no idea what that will entail, He stated that in order to accommodat that planning, it is necessary to now if they will be able to have acc as from Pacific Coast Highway. He at ed that through an appraisal process w th CalTrans, they have negotiated n a price to buy the access rights the property, and in order to carry ut that transaction, Resolution No. 83-5 should be rescinded. He, therefore, sug ested that the Council take the recommen ed action, with the representation th Hoag Hospital will continue in good faith to work with the residents of Balboa Coves in an attempt to come u Volume 42 - Page 135 CalTrans E/ PCH r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ` COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES po \1i015 c April 11, 1988 the Municipal Code, be altered to---- Zoning/ conform_ to the requirements of the Code 307 Is Av within 60 years from the date of" original construction, was presented. Letter with attachments from Hillary F. Thamer, Associate Vice President of Coldwell Banker, representative of Judith Homme, was presented. The City Manager summarized the staff report noting that on the subject lot, a dwelling unit was constructed in 1912 and another unit in 1946. Both dwellings were constructed when the property was located in the R-2 District and permitted a maximum of two dwelling units on the site. In 1949 the City changed the zoning from R-2 to R-1 which made the dwellings a nonconforming use. In 1980, the City Council adopted an ordinance which placed a 60-year amortization period upon a structure that was nonconforming because the zoning had been changed. He stated that the question before the Council is whether to apply the 60-year amortization period on the structure built in 1912, or the unit built in 1946. Frank Walker, applicant, addressed the Council and stated that he closed escrow on the subject property three weeks ago. He stated that the subject property is one and a half lots, containing 3,150 sq. ft., which have two separate buildings on the property; the main building has three bedrooms and two baths. Charlotte Petersen, Tarbell Realtors, addressed the Council and stated that the second unit was legally permitted when constructed and she did not feel it fair to have that right taken away. She stated that the property is in excellent condition and she would urge the Council to let it remain as such. The City Attorney stated that he did not feel the Council could enforce the subject ordinance under either interpretation because the ordinance is triggered from the date of original construction and suggested the ordinance be revised to "trigger" from the point at which the property becomes nonconforming. Volume 42 - Page 137 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES -1G�.j�G��A ref� April 11, 1988 iuncx v Motion x . In view of the foregoing, motion was Zoning/ All Ayes made to grant the exemption, and to 307 Is Av direct the staff to report back in six months as to the feasibility of_deleting the 60-year amortisation period from the sting adjourned at 8:50 p.m., in memory of hn Macnab, developer; community leader; and past President of the Newport Harbor Area amber of Commerce, who passed away on kch 28, 1988. agenda for this meeting was posted Thursday, April 7, 1988 at 9:15 a.m., the City Hall Bulletin Board located de of the City of Newport Beach istration Building. 1 Volume 42 - Page 138 r City Council Meeting April 11. 1988 Agenda Item No. J-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Request For Exemption From Section 20.87.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code LOCATION: Lot 93, Subdivision of Block A, East Newport, located at 307 Island Avenue, on the westerly side of Island Avenue between East Bay Avenue and Edgewater Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R-1 APPLICANT: Judith Homme, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Description of Requested Exemption This item involves a request for an exemption from the requirements of Section 20.87.140 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which requires that buildings on lots which contain a greater number of dwelling units than permitted by Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code, be altered to conform to the requirements of the Code within sixty years from the date of original construction. In accordance with the provisions of the above mentioned section, the City Council may consider exemptions to this requirement upon the request of the affected property owner. Suggested Action If desired, either grant or deny the requested exemption. Back rg ound On May 14, 1979, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1804 which established a 30 year amortization for residential structures containing legal dwelling units which exceeded the allowable density permitted by the Zoning District in which they were located. Subsequently, on January 7, 1980, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1830 (Amendment No. 538) which changed the amortization period from 30 years to 60 years from the date of construction. Said change was for the purpose of allowing the full economic life of the nonconforming structures and related uses to be realized before they were required to be removed or altered. l TO: Planning Commission-2. The Planning Department first became aware of the subject property in November of 1979 at which time it was determined from information obtained through the County Assessor's Office, that there were two dwelling units on the site which was located in the R-1 District. Said information also indicated that one of the dwelling units was constructed in 1912 and the second dwelling unit was constructed in 1946. Both dwellings were constructed when the property was located in the R-2 District and permitted a maximum of two dwelling units on the site. The applicant purchased the subject property in 1983 without a Residential Building Records (RBR) check. Therefore, at the time of purchase, she was not aware that one of the existing dwelling units exceeded 60 years of age and was required to be removed from the site, unless said requirement was waived by the City Council. It should be noted that if an RBR had been requested, the Planning Department would have provided such information prior to the applicant's purchase of the property. Inasmuch as the existing property owner is attempting to sell the property and has now requested an RBR, staff has informed the property owner of the above requirements. Analysis The subject property contains two detached dwelling units. The oldest and larger of the two was constructed in 1912 and contains two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and bathroom. The smaller dwelling, which -was constructed in 1946, contains one bedroom, a living room, kitchen and bathroom. Both structures are in fair condition and do not represent a detriment to the neighborhood (see attached photographs). Only one open, nonconforming parking space is provided onsite, where the Municipal Code currently requires 3 parking spaces for two dwelling units on a lot, with at least two of said spaces to be covered. As indicated in the attached letter from the applicant's representative, it is the applicant's contention that the 60 year amortization provision should be applied to the unit built in 1946, thereby establishing a date of compliance of 2006. Although such an interpretation may be reasonable, considering it was the construction of the 1946 dwelling unit which established two dwelling units on the site, the language in the Municipal Code specifies "the date of original construction." It is staff's opinion that such language is confusing at best, inasmuch as it is unclear if the date of original construction applies to the original dwelling unit or to the second unit which established the nonconforming condition of the property. It is staff's further opinion that a reasonable interpretation in this case, would be to use the date of construction of the dwelling unit which established the nonconforming second dwelling unit on the site. Should the City Council concur in this opinion, no action would be necessary at this time, and staff would so interpret the existing language of the Code. TO: Planning Commission-3. It should also be noted that the Code Enforcement Officer has identified that one of the dwelling units maintains an illegally converted attic space which appears to be used for human habitation. Should the City Council approve the requested exemption or determine that the date of compliance is appropriately the year 2006, it is recommended that the applicant be required to return the attic space to its original condition. Proposed Deletion of the 60 Year Amortization At its meeting of March 10, 1988, the Planning Commission considered Amendment No. 659 which involved a request to amend Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to delete the 60 year amortization provision. Such a deletion was suggested by staff in conjunction with the Planning Commission's consideration of a companion Amendment No. 657, which proposed to rezone the R-4 portions of the Balboa Peninsula. It was staff's opinion that the 60 year amortization provision would become a significant hardship for property owners, without contributing significantly to the removal of nonconforming dwelling units. To date, the City, has not required the removal or alteration of a structure which exceeded the allowable number of dwelling units on a lot. However, Section 20.83.070 of the Municipal Code does provide that structural alterations to a nonconforming building shall require the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code by the Modifications Committee. Any such approval may be appealed or reviewed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. It should be noted that no action was taken on either amendment application, inasmuch as the Planning Commission decided to defer the proposed zone change to later in the year, when they are scheduled to consider the proposed General Plan update. However, should the City Council wish to consider the deletion of the 60 year amortization provision, it may wish to direct the Planning Commission to consider Amendment No. 659 immediately. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. EWI CER, Director W. illiam Ward Senior Planner Attachments for City Council only: Vicinity Map Letter from applicant's representative with attachments Photographs of Existing Residential Development •SEE MAP 'nJ. 7 rf oN �•T b 7 N�'Typo�� R3 R'2 Pro• R•/ \ \ \ to. s• R-3 R'2 Pro. 6 '4- Ry '2o. \ \ R'3 Pro- � •s. •ro Pro.\ BstBo-9 R-3 R.2 OS \ or -0. O.S PJ t1 p 3 J� o- ` R-1 R31. R3 R-3.7. >. F J R-3 -to- � - � �CEHN•a C �''l C a E '4 C N O C-E-A.N DISTRICTING NEWPORT BEACH — C AWIILULTUIUL RESIDENTIAL R"I SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C—I R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 FELT _qR—] RESTb. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL M—T w COMBINING DISTRICTS FU I �Y/GEy�O R-r MAP ALIFORNIA MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL LIGHT COMMERCIAL I GENERAL COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING {t• • No. Sao UNCLASSIFIED M. RG. law iTorosED oXaMPT/ON - 307 154AND AVON09 M►P No. AMUWe n4KToeSWSvrUNCUL� coiDweL- aOKU oX COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES POST OFFICE BOX 8566 COAST HIGHWAY AT AVOCADO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714)644.9DBO February 26, 1988 To City Council: As the representative of Judith Homme, owner of a single family home and separate unit located at 307 Island, I an submitting a petition under the "60 year grandfather" clause (ordinance 1579 Subject 2 1974 - 20.87.140) to allow the "as is" on the 2nd unit. The original ham was built in 1912. The completely separate "unit" was permitted and built in 1946. Because of the transfer of real property and the compliance to the cities law on city inspection before transfer, it was brought to the attention of Mrs. Hamle that part of the, unit must be eliminated to comply. It is our contention that the permit allowing the unit would have a compliance date of 2006. We look for an agreeable solution to this rather important problem. Very Sincerely, Hi lacy F. T Associate Vice President HT/jh Enclosure of copy of assessors work sheet showing permit #6939. RECEIVED MAR 2119w NaS' GRr oo CAI t A Date CZ: cS SENT ra ❑ Mayu ❑ Councilmen [] Manager Ri torney 0 Bi?g. Dir. ❑G"S vDir. lanning Dir. 4/it%cvr' ❑ Police Ghiei E3 PA Dir ❑ Other < Q, 9c & 116!�Z�lle: -.'-W.`DING DEM �y:�=s�a•i�• I _9. At Nw,CLM i � Rleekt ' lwtr,rt �i IN e4 M1eltef Few reopw rind lt.m Nell LaN �Sie = click .. « lilekR7te� w Tow �� gg��yy� Sl�ee 1CdOK U ._..• a -ROOPIP-! i SAWWWHhs��_— e+tette CetnpteA Irw TW T" F1NmH UeldeleOW4 M"tr IItene PTirw � T.IIi Lm ' C~Fwr �A• FOUNDATION Lt FLOOR M' I.f. 1W./Fes• Ides tjr• 1 ^ N*I FIXOM Re• TT441it+) -- ✓t+mod•: TUeyyle7eddw xdb �MdL CeePe. _. fAf ! CONSPRUMON LetAM • R W pa�o 67aid Li FLOOR !WALLS d iw a y ! I/ EL ' ' . A T L a 13 M-011 6 FI.6OR bw 112 f INN Dw 1— UvZRODM -- Sm y ,� ' NEfM 0 o --�- Rm ete.N.t r«.t R.tr Rer Rnelr. R.. w Neat Heriwd PLeee iletdeeeiFLih f!-3G - 1 Y Piae FES 4 6 3 c xo 7 �c —�. Fo�rL. 2 3 p 13 N p 5 0 }L ue....� Fedkn J 43 01"�u.u�s.r. :ndo� z3 //7 ..+.r+ ZS A! r a s �► i4T L1A_a+A Ave •. .. .ua� • *Act l owport Beach Oils i SheE TraeE tut Ma*eert Sleek 1 - od--parcel • RESIDENCE ✓ UNITS DOOMW00" ROOK HI ✓ I" Sbd � lA� st o Hem . — _ YMadera CvtUp Mlee✓ Slab lat. Sher NAa1rY� YNaI SSIS WRMARAdra c" -I - M-0- i F M �.�Wub ON& 100" woo "^•" � Cade. k" Akft MOdwb� d AIDS x —we FOUNDATIONNews U.buit C�ahC TV* kkk Alec, CaR CCwWal TawIN Id y00R` flMre It 11yj R• M✓ DwbM TY� ROOY MCCOMdaWYM •► G• w W'W etal Loth w FLOOR wo fvwroan ON f1011q✓ewe. IONIC al Hadw"d Dov�Twk lwro A�rAab j) j wwd ! J. G. � .. Skk owww Agar Par" Walk Dala - Tob - Y. Cad smo ar TO" ✓ RAYARKS laral HH►P 0 T HHER 0 0 Fireakm (T sLd 14L e/ D HW. Heel Or W." Om FTrr +— Gn. Eared RadNdd LT.U. TM�.gir a/F,+•y /y Aw. 1 ' Oed uoHnNG EFdde '. �'.•.. - S D%j�. •. 7G y _/'J•yy aa.rrerl Imam* Codall a RAT C49Od4bAS G�ao %ir a �e pv� Deft°E948 a::b a Arn �O �O 'io3' z - y5o 3'-•err S9� 9D • 399 6 yy ' Cad Oaad 70�'�` A O"dvir o ' AL•NEi •. 93'o' kuw %mood S='. .qc lit .Gq. .. .. 'G. y.. I•r'� • .s. - 1 � . 0 O K O 11 t4 IS 14 IS It 11 © QQ w ST h ISLAND W � y biro fr f AIPIAL /NOio�MgNl rig 5U9. SLK• A. EASt NE1VpORT . AVENUE s-1.. r- NOTE - ASSESSOR9S L'jOFK a PARCEL NUMBERS\ SHOWN /N CIRCLES \ s 0 s•' STNo s ASSESSO SC05 BOOK COUIyry Of ORANGE FRONT �F TNS SITE -PW FoRT'IOAI OF- THE STITUcTUXAS (WrOl OPA-9 PARK snccE A PJAC NT TO AN AL.LaY) 9 AMU*ROFTIESEA0.RFM.INCMLNEIW01M( February 26, 1988 To City Council: COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES POST OFFICE BOX 8565 COAST HIGHWAY AT AVOCADO NEWPORT REACH. CA 926% (714)644.9DSO As the representative of Judith HomDe, owner of a single family hone and separate unit located at 307 Island, I am submitting a petition under the "60 year grandfather" clause (ordinanoe 1579 Subject 2 1974 -• 20.87.140) to allow the "as is" on the 2nd unit. The original home was built in :1912. The completely separate "unit" was permitted and built in 1946. Because of the transfer of real property and the oopliance to the cities law on city inspection before transfer, it was brought to the attention of Mrs. Home that part of the. unit must be eliminated to cxmply. It is our contention that the permit allowing the unit would have a compliance date of 2006. We look for an agreeable solution to this rather important problem. Very Sincerely, {%A Hi lacy F. T Associate Vice President Hr/jh Enclosure of ocpy of assessors work sheet showing permit #6939. C�?;EJ S94TM 11 councilmen RECEIVED , 0Manager El Aaerney Q Sire. Dir. MAR21 ISM a� � ) Q Ee a Dir. �bRr ninl Dir. ❑ Pofice h(ef ❑ P.'. Dir f 0 Other UEMING D&%RIP•i•IOIV$LANI WM CLAN lk/..!at...R Y.00 =Z Pk.t 1 maeN-mmv .•'e.EXIiIdOtRRr.iit dc In`. 10R Ga �1y]b{C�?Bity1d.7..I! � CAUR Moq-t3—. sm"u Im iG L- BFIIlWin_ 4H- V �M°EdaWEw3� •T t3ti... p.y.r �y Omwtld ____r s�a�W'MM I dEi� 8��..•t 8t... M Btlek, 7M YW 7d:plutw �t..tR.8A71NG GG«� .. � g�g�� FOUNDATION j lot FLOOR n AT PLUMBING EUII.7IIY PRATUB86 Nsbr. FFinns ' B.A� spod " Tam Bak Co..ed CONBTRuanom r1AB i1INt l..t MM M.dfu •� 2sd FLOOR wwus Itt it3 s If=/ wk V. P✓I � ►3 vD.T MI r .r 6 FLOOR I : o Aft Rn R.t. M.a'. ir. I Rd R.... 81.t014 �� Ra\ R... I...tb ' HHPP �/ U o O IItar• 1 ' ..t NETPP En.k. irw K Nnk .j-3G-7y Hwdw.dFla fa. FEB It 6 ncr, 4 R Ho 47 ; G-row r a3At 1'dN WkSO 1t3 o.u+w c a G& - .117. } r.....t J o.aar+abr. J/6 //7 :.3 Al uG 8 io6,2 . vI'w 31 f p a r . StTH1 307 Island Ars Difhick_ Aswport Bssoh Oita 1 ShNr / *.Z Tract- Taft AaSn,en+ Sleek l Lot gsb parcel �P- ;.+A-2s RESIDENCE ✓ UNITS ROOFS HI be Lew SMd Iphrhr Rs. Ist 2W D p1Me FW HIP uMiehMd ss . _ _ bloden SCCM«atii✓ lot. Sh«e HA"Oooal Mehl sm WHMsf 101dr Mpodllw j a Il 0:MfIeRM . DwbM 0hZALLS Cem aim � M°M'rb°°'d . _ ✓ FOUNDATION Colohabick W" M� wnn A"" Id Nh• aiYOiR` PPWW 2s! aB. 31Mwej �O11j 3• by Dwbh M� ROOM lM STUCCO w sMo- of- �.e « 11d b , Fohl� FLOOR DRVM . SIDIIb ✓eyK_ Ysmw weOW SP1b�a.Foet� Hadwod �bibi�l 3drooen ,�L GIaWe3MWet Tt0 •► G• Klkfi�n •.. Siek . 0~ Ralhreom / - SuRdr Fya P.rwdl Wai4 Oeh Tub BI. Case SI011 . Ws Td10 REMARKS �•� . HHPP 0 T HHER D O Flnpiea (T sLn%wo,o/ _ H ¢0 EIW. Hwt Cos Wail ' Gm Floor �— On. Forod . - RodMud RtU. i / Y 9 / �" C►sa ✓ 0 ' Msd. Cood LIOHTINO FiWrk CLASS x �/ _/S!-!/2 Fluerrsanf Iodine! . SO! KRT Doh °E946e !f y5o 3 /fS S9D 9D .. 399G G Yy ' fu3dinS CM %O"d A,$ e.s 7Ooy %Deed Veb» 19 G/G�3 . •t 9 y/ 0 �� • " 3 D 7 D' SO ^ d O » E ©7 Q 26 ©4 23 22 31 19 K e Q � O L 4 6 O � � 10 II 12 IS 14 16 16 17 � IiS (� 0 »• AVENUE h ti ISLAND .» '• o� 23 ' I '2� 1 ' its i Ai ii O O 25 3T NE • i _Q ut7�!� � '�ittt I rrr rra; ra ua n! sr 20 f I• � p p p O � � "•o '• 019 UNDO -�\ `` - • ® 18 m 03 :. 4` Ile .o r � b� 1 f s•AflR L!M! •,IIglR a N 7 ASSESSOR'S MAP O NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLCCK R BOOK 48 PAGE OS PARCEL NUMBERS\ COUNTY Of ORANGE 1' WK 4.5I SHOWN IN CIRCLES C'" Tp(E SU9. BLK. A. EA51 NEWpORT .