HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Appeal of PC Decision - Hormann - CorrespondenceLAW OFFICES OF
GARY S. MOBLEY
GARY S. MOBLEY APROFESSb CORPoH TM
17011 BEACH BLVD., SUITE 900
ERICA L. MOBLEY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647
February 24, 2014
VIA EMAILlPERSONAL DELIVERY
Kimberly Brandt, Director
Community Development Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
kbrandt@nmTortbeachca.gov
Re: GREG AND SHARON HORMANN
Appeal of Variance Application No. PA2013-086
Dear Ms. Brandt:
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:"4f / I
_777-17—
TELEPHONE (714) 968-8181
TELECOMER (714) 375-6672
1
c
73
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and the city attorney on February
13, 2014 to further discuss the appeal by my clients, Greg and Sharon Hormann
("Hormanns"), of the denial of their application for a variance to remodel and add an
addition to their residence located at 417 and 419 East Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, CA
("Subject Property"). I appreciated the chance to help clarify the basis of my clients'
appeal and provide additional information supporting the Hormanns' appeal. I am
enclosing some documents I promised to provide you in our meeting. I am also enclosing
proposed findings for the city council in the event my clients' appeal is grarted. By copy
of this letter, I am requesting that the city clerk provide a copy of this letter to each of the
city council members and include this letter as part of the administrative record.
As you know, my clients seek a variance from various provisions of the City Code
in order to allow; the Honnanns to remodel and add an addition to their existing 1,785
square -foot duplex in order to expand the residence to the rear of the property, thereby
utilizing the remaining developable portion of the parcel. The existing building is a legal
non -conforming structure having been built in 1940, before any set back requirements
were adopted by the City. The property was originally zoned C-1 commercial, but the
400 block of Balboa Boulevard was rezoned to R-2 residential, which we now understand
occurred in 1994.
The need for this variance arises from the fact that, when this residence was
originally constructed in 1940, only a small portion of the parcel was developed with the
existing building. NBMC Section 20.38.040 limits additions to legal non -conforming
structures to 50% of the gross square footage area of the existing building. Other
provisions of the Code require certain mandatory improvements, including addition of a
LAW OFFICES
GARY S. MOBLEY
A PROFEMONNL CORP WION
Kimberly Brandt, Director
Community Development Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 24, 2014
Page 2
two -car garage, which are counted in the square footage of the remodel/addition project.
Given the small size of the Hormanns' residence and these mandatory improvements,
applying the 50% limitation to the Subject Property would limit any remodel/addition to
the addition to a single room, which is not practical or economically feasible. As a result,
the Hormanns cannot effectively remodel their residence under the 50% limitation in
NBMC Section 20.38.040.
The other option, bringing the current building into compliance with the front and
side yard setbacks, is also not a viable option here because the cost of bringing the
building into compliance would be more expensive than simply demolishing the building
and erecting a new structure. This fact is confirmed by the attached letter from J & R
Construction dated January 24, 2014, which reviewed the existing building and
concluded that it would cost more to modify the existing building to conform to the
setback requirements than to demolish the existing structure and build a new duplex.
Since this duplex is being used as the residence of the Hormanns' residence and their
adult daughter, my clients cannot to demolish the duplex and erect a new structure.
We believe that the small size of the existing building qualifies as a special or
unique circumstance justifying the grant of a variance. The Hormanns' property this is
the only parcel in the area where the property owner has not been able to fully utilize the
full developable portion of the property. Thus, unless a variance is granted, the
Hormanns will be prevented from adding onto their residence and, thereby, deprived of
rights enjoyed by all other property owners in the area with identical zoning.
As I mentioned in our meeting, the City has previously recognized that financial
hardship could justify a discretionary permit. Specifically, enclosed is a modification
permit issued by the City in 2007 to the owner at 407 Balboa Blvd., which is another
non -conforming property located just down the street from the Subject Property. This
modification permit allowed the property owner to add a second floor addition to an
existing non -conforming residence. This discretionary permit was justified on the
grounds that "the cost of removing and reconstructing the building to comply with the
required front and alley setbacks would be financially prohibitive."
As previously noted, the 50% limitation is not a viable option for my clients
because the existing structure is so small that applying the 50% limitation and the other
LAW OFFICES
GARY S. MOBLEY
A PRO ESSION COR RATION
Kimberly Brandt, Director
Community Development Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 24, 2014
Page 3
mandatory requirements required by the Code would not allow any reasonable addition to
the existing building.
I hope this additional information assists you in evaluating and, hopefully,
supporting this project.
Very trul yours,
Z�'
Gary .M
cc: Aaron Harp, Esq., City Attorney (via email)
City Clerk, City of Newport Beach
John Loomis (via email)
r
r
M 1.
-'W1.
in
MR.
fomtt I
4
VTW
tha: qm"
. . ..... ... ---
nIsba" N's
..... ... .. .. .. .
4n
6.tI+a Ai with 0 1 ii
Song:` "&'
mg
por tho 7
firth omwok6o too
Mpg
041
me pfpp I any ewo not bo ckawnentatt to Ifte gonAfpl �-'Wwe or
rr jmpriD%4m4�nts in p)e neighbottK)od boLsbd Do U* folkMing
.1 lh'q first flocr reat.
C"� Lf portlon of tAo axls" WildiPq WA b, ng 1 :11
Uy the r�' + ifed jqey t@thack, Sw proyide rmWenti3l.;;6Ainq
r aujowl try m to Zona
t6nOeVarkd awamilts in the Aley wtbac'K Dc'
T4 s corpd<'Story4' of h—, Oe area VAR conform tr );I
S'qtbaq -sboo i'$P ug
ts of tho 'RP' MW
COMM OafI C; I",
he dpma .
"n t In,thyq R fir@4 ail6ack oi the }Tic pKsty ' il"If
Ynur� In gilt 04 artO his to
In
Wit '491R8M
MARV-
IV 0 A
ON.. Oher
SAW on
INS at
k*f.Wdv. If
;s:
i ZVI c
na) a ef of
PNOWS a
BY,
eii
ON
A
lowe
ON.. Oher
SAW on
INS at
k*f.Wdv. If
;s:
i ZVI c
na) a ef of
PNOWS a
BY,
ai t� 1 1 'iii r t4�1
a
�
tt ii 1 4latayr finial Noior eh�'attw ttiN be W. ,ems! ti•stl hes (p;tfS d 7erC8911 . . `!
ty: 34rz3s !Ni pntkrray Width) ahb",e the alley flow, line efewtal?mn,'fs i
co 1:'r P tio!k:Woiks,
"i—i 3p L v l vas I}a'sctl on the parlxulats of the individual case aM Cfnas elft.
rrr'i r501 cr •n rombinatton Win cthe.r 6�ntOv$Is itt thg-Atinity.Of CI%AVyda
a precec!Ont for IuWe aporovals or CleCa aitil9
t'-rWv to i,4suancia of building permits, t7 s appticaart shale sulcal"j tc t in Pte^ta r
`yt i ;°tt?gnt an addtt of copy a4 the approved archdet turril' (rens for to irs t)rt in
°`•as yt,,dixte;.at r Pemit filth. The plans shaft be.�d6ntiUji to 040„d apJ:*t;vrxt ty, dif .
y t, apa'tol
�ents for buiidifKq p4ofrM tssuance. The app,i'.t1`tlsti "U G%• `ii'lttl
a,e:+teMtural sh"ts OrOy arrd shaft be reduced in size tot
x plans shall as tttataty depet the eiements approved by Ns hlodlfclhon Perm
shall hlghli bt the appro%axnI }slgment8. such that trey sirO n?aie lr 0 r .L
\\
f—,—,in other et4t»ents of the .plans.
Zts,�Jing permit shalt be obtained prior to "mmencerrent of the aonOi :c':i
+ cony of this approval letter shas be tr4orporated +rto the &WIng t}+9y n•i
r;a!d Sets of plans p664 to isSuao-nce of the building pony its.
approval stat expire unless exercised within 24 mon is from the epi o'. e
az spee`red n Section 213.93.4150 (A) of the Newport Baach Wniblo Code F
r" expiration date of tier appeovat, an wasnsion may be appnxfo to am,
viAh Suction 2093.650 IBp of the r ewpod Beach Municipal Coda, Rewesls
4 xieRSlOat irttr tae at wrstv+p
APP l P.
Ftwe Zcr%rng A.drseauattatar s dKmion msy be appeaW to iia Ptannkig Comrrjsaitan ww— n
ray's of the amore d*e. A SM 00 fsing f" shag atcon"y any opp" fldad: No buA,
} pants awy bo r/susd wWi 014 gipped petW has expwW, A Cvnv o? fiw l tette,
t aha tiR.lttc,^. +�+ Mktg n,tt Fitsti!li5+.� tent sem"" of a Wa afd to isa,+vs. -b gf
- th huit nin vwsr�irt tra lstum!a!ft r td t� eh�
5128 E. Ist STREET LONG BEACH CALIF. 90803 949 350 5787
24 January 2014
City of Newport Beach
Building Division
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
re: Hormann Residence I Remodel + Addition
417/419 E. Balboa Boulevard
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a general contractor with more than 30 years' construction experience in
Southern California. I have been asked to evaluate the feasibility of modifying
the existing Hormann duplex at 417/419 E. Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach,
to bring the front and side -yard setbacks into conformity, increasing the front
yard from 2-1f2 feet to 5 feet, and increasing the side -yard setbacks from "0"
feet to 3 feet.
After reviewing the existing conditions and proposed setback changes, and due
to the first -floor construction having been built with 8 -inch thick CMU fully
grouted walls and wide, offset concrete footings, my recommendation, which
will be both cost and time efficient, is to demolish the existing structure
rebuild a new duplex with conforming setbacks, rather than modify the existing
building.
If you have any questions or need further clarification, please contact me.
Joe Railey
Owner
JR Construction
Proposed Variance Findings if Hormann Appeal is Granted:
1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (i.e., location, shape, size, surrounding, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification. Specifically, the existing structure on the property
is a 1,785 square foot building that was constructed in 1940, before the City
adopted setback requirements and when the area was zoned C-1 commercial.
Further, the existing structure is small in relation to the overall buildable length of
the parcel, occupying less than 50% of the buildable length of the parcel.
These characteristics are unique because this is the only residence in the
area that utilizes less than 50% of the buildable length of the parcel. In contrast,
all other residences in the area have been allowed to develop the entire buildable
length of their parcel. It is financially unfeasible to bring the building into
compliance with existing setback non -conformities or to demolish the existing
building and construct a new residence. Application of the 50% rule in this
particular case, because the existing building is so small at 1785 s.f., creates a
unique circumstance resulting in an allowable habitable addition of only 532 s.f.
or a total habitable area of about 2317 s.£, which is much smaller ths:;1 the average
development size of about 3800 s.£ of gross area of neighboring lots in this block,
thereby creating a hardship.
2. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical
zoning classification in that strict compliance with the zoning code would limit the
size of any proposed addition to approximately 532 s.f., or a total gross area
approximately 1,123 s.f., which is far less than the average size of all neighboring
developments in the area.
3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicants. Granting of this variance is necessary
because it is the only fair and equitable option that will allow the owners to enjoy
their property rights.
4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations orr other properties in the vicinity and in the same
zoning districts in that all other properties in the area have e n allowed to
develop the full buildable length of the parcel. Granting of this Variance
Application will not create a special privilege because this is a unique
circumstance relating to this lot and structure only, resulting from a very small,
existing structure, that has remained unchanged since its construction in 1940 and
that was constructed with CMU walls built on the property lines that make it
infeasible to modify to bring into conformance. Other lots may have non -
conformities, but these can usually be brought into conformance without having to
demolish the existing structure. Granting of this variance would allow the owners
to enjoy the same rights as enjoyed by others in this block.
5. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly
growth of the city, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the
public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood. This project has the support of the Fire
Department and the Building Department. The existing side yard walls are 8 in.
thick CMU construction at the first floor that equal over a 4 -hour fire rating. One
existing bathroom window on the east side will be infilled. The entire project,
including the existing building will be fully fire sprinklered. The Fire Department
is also satisfied with access to the site. When completed, this project will be safer
than most of the other buildings in this zone.
Further, because the proposed three-story addition is located on the rear
half of the property, the Planning Department felt that the proposed project was
consistent with the neighborhood design context in terms of scale, mass, form,
height, and character.
6. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this
Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable Specific Plan
because the variance process was created to deal with existing unique anomalies
such as this situation. In this case, full compliance with the Zoning Code as
written would require an unfair and unreasonable remedy. The variance process
was created to provide relief from exactly these types of situations.
Brown, Leilani
From: Zdeba, Benjamin
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:11 AM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: 417 & 419 E Balboa
Hi Leilani,
I received this regarding item No. 11 from past City Council meeting on February 25th. The gentleman wishes to have this
distributed to Council.
Thanks,
BENJAMIN ZDEBA
PH. (949) 644-3253
bzdeba(a)newportbeachca.gov
From: GEORGE HAJJAR [mailto:gphajjarHd)msn.com]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin
Subject: 417 & 419 E Balboa
Hi Ben, hope all is well.
I just wanted to write a letter regarding the city council's decision to revisit the code so that they can find a
way for the Hormann's to add that monstrosity to the back of their home.
As I mentioned at the meeting, no matter what code the council comes up with, someone will always try to
get a variance. In addition those people who conformed to the code earlier will feel wronged because the
council relaxed the rules after they had to conform to them.
The Hormann's knew they were buying an old, nonconforming property when they purchased it 5 or 6 years
ago. I am also sure they were told they were buying it for lot value, because the building was built in 1949.
The Hormann's want to keep the old building, because they are encroaching on both side & front easements,
& they don't want to give up the square footage that those encroachments provide them.
I strongly believe that the codes should not be altered, & the council should not waste their time.
I do have a compromise suggestion for the council, since their complaint is that under the currant rules all
they can add is a double garage & one bedroom, the council can let them add enough additional square
footage so that the final total, between the existing building & the new addition, is equal to the amount a
totally new construction would allow them, if they started from scratch!
This will eliminate their hardship concern, and would provide more square footage for their family to use, and
enjoy.
Please forward my letter to the council for their review.
Thanks,
George Hajjar