Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Zoning Code Amendment to Modify the Standards and Process for Reviewing Building Additions to Nonconforming Structures (PA2014-083) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed February 10, 2015 Item No. 11 February 10, 2015, Council Agenda Item 11 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( Lmmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Item 11. A Zoning Code Amendment to Modify the Standards and Process for Reviewing Building Additions to Nonconforming Structures (PA2014 -083) I have the greatest respect for the City's Planning staff, and I don't want to second guess the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the proposed changes to NBMC Section 20.38.40 ( "Nonconforming Structures "), but I also think the City should make every effort to enact clear laws, and I think there are a couple of problems with the clarity of how the proposed changes to Section 20.38.40 interact with Section 20.52.050 ( "Modification Permits "), as well as the proposed change to Section 20.52.050 — issues the Planning Commission didn't devote much attention to. I see two problems: Implementing the changes to Section 20.38.40 requires the Planning Commission to grant Modification Permits, but when one reads Section 20.52.050 in a wider context than is reproduced in the ordinance, one sees that in the City's current permitting scheme, Modification Permits are a thing granted by the Zoning Administrator, not by the Planning Commission (see Subsection 20.52.050.B: "Review Authority and Allowable Modifications. The Zoning Administrator shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for modification permits applicable only to the following, ... "). Subsection 20.52.050.F.3.a provides an out whereby the Zoning Administrator may refer a Modification Permit to the Planning Commission for consideration, and in this case would have to since Subsection 20.38.40.G.1 denies her the authority to approve this particular class of permits. But that's certainly confusing to those trying to read what they have to do to get their Modification Permit approved and it could stand a cleanup. 2. Much more importantly, to bring these allowances for expansion of non - conforming structures within the ambit of the Modification Permits approved by the "Zoning Administrator" — even though the Zoning Administrator can't actually approve them — staff proposes adding Subsection 20.52.050.B.3.h as a new category approvable by the Zoning Administrator: "Increase in allowed floor area of additions for nonconforming residential structures as identified in Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures)." However when one reads the heading to this subsection it very clearly says it is a listing of categories of Zoning Administrator Modification Permit approvals in which "The following modifications are not limited in the amount of deviation from the standard being modified." Now, the Planning Commission was adamant that an addition of 75% was the maximum deviation addition allowed by a Modification Permit approved pursuant to Subsection 20.38.40.G.1from the normal standard of a 50% addition allowed every 10 February 10, 2015, Agenda Item 11 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 years. Yet Subsection 20.52.050.6.3 says this is a category of Modification Permit in which there is no limit to the allowable deviation, obviating the need for a variance for larger deviations. I may be being even more obtuse than usual, but I find it very confusing to have the code say in one place that the maximum addition that can be approved with a Modification Permit is 75% and in another that there is no limit to the "Zoning Administrator "'s authority to grant deviations. Since the two provisions are being enacted simultaneously, I would even think this contradiction could lead to litigation. When this point was brought up at the Planning Commission hearing on December 4, as best I can recall the response was basically that Planning staff has long understood Subsection 20.52.050.B.3 to mean something different from what its plain language might suggest. I would submit that others may be as confused as me, and while we can be pretty sure Subsection 20.52.050.B.3.h was not intended to erase the discretionary limit simultaneously enacted in Subsection 20.38.40.G.1, having staff rely on a reading not obvious to others is not a good thing. I think it would be much better to take the time necessary to modify Section 20.52.050 so that in the present case it clearly empowers the Planning Commission to allow floor area additions of up to, but not more than 75 %, by approving a Modification Permit, but does so in a way that does not confuse either their or the Zoning Administrator's authority. Doing so could be as easy as inserting before the first sentence of Subsection 20.52.050.B a statement that the Planning Commission, acting in the same manner as the Zoning Administrator, is the review authority for Modification Permits sought in connection with Subsection 20.38.40.G.1, while in all other cases the Zoning Administrator proceeds as the Section 20.52.050 currently specifies.