HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Zoning Code Amendment to Modify the Standards and Process for Reviewing Building Additions to Nonconforming Structures (PA2014-083)CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
February 10, 2015
Agenda Item No. 11
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director — (949) 644-3226,
kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
PHONE: (949) 644-3253
TITLE: A Zoning Code Amendment to Modify the Standards and Process for Reviewing
Building Additions to Nonconforming Structures (PA2014-083)
ABSTRACT:
An amendment to modify the standards and process for reviewing building additions to homes that do not
conform to current zoning standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Conduct a public hearing;
b) Find that the adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
c) Introduce Ordinance No. 2015-3, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
Approving an Amendment to Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Revising the
Amount of Floor Area Additions Allowed to Nonconforming Structures (PA2014-083) (Staff Report
Attachment No. CC 1), approving Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 as recommended by the Planning
Commission, and pass to second reading on February 24, 2015.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no direct fiscal impact related to this item.
DISCUSSION:
Background and Introduction
On January 28, 2014, the City Council directed staff to review Zoning Code Section 20.38.040
(Nonconforming Structures) as it relates to smaller residential structures to ensure equitable development
opportunities. The Council's action followed an appeal of a variance application concerning an addition
over the allowable amount to an existing nonconforming duplex (see Attachment No. CC 3). 11-1
A nonconforming structure is typically a home that complied with zoning and development standards (e.g.,
setbacks, heights, floor area limits, etc.) at the time it was constructed, but no longer fully complies due to
subsequent changes made to those standards. The purpose of the Nonconforming Uses and Structures
provisions in the Zoning Code is to encourage nonconforming structures to become conforming over time
through establishing procedures and criteria for continuation, maintenance, and expansion. This is
currently achieved by limiting building additions to nonconforming structures to no more than 50 percent of
the existing floor area. The Zoning Code further limits building additions to only 10 percent when the
minimum number of parking spaces is not provided. All building additions must also comply with all other
applicable Zoning Code development standards.
In cases where a structure is nonconforming due to its setback encroachments, height, or other physical
condition and the minimum number of parking spaces is provided, the 50 -percent limitation will generally
allow the property owner to develop the property near or to its maximum floor area limitation. However, in
cases where the minimum number of parking spaces is not provided, the required addition of parking can
account for a substantial portion of the 50 -percent allowance, especially when the existing house is small
in relation to the lot size. For example, a two -car garage is typically 400 square feet in area, and if the
existing house is 1,000 square feet, then only 100 square feet could be added as new living area under
today's standards.
Planninq Commission Review and Recommendation
On August 21, 2014, staff presented the Planning Commission with the issue and identified four regulatory
options. Although there was agreement that inequities exist amongst nonconforming developments, the
Commission expressed concern that allowing too much flexibility may compromise the purpose of
encouraging conformance with the current development standards. The Commission directed staff to
return with a more detailed report including examples of the recommended options. See Attachment Nos.
CC5and CC6.
On October 23, 2014, the Commission reviewed the identified options in more detail and provided
direction to staff to exclude the construction of a garage from the allowable addition to a nonconforming
structure. The Commission also suggested a discretionary process with specific findings addressing when
development of a nonconforming structure is hindered by its existing size or the built circumstances. See
Attachment Nos. CC 7 and CC 8.
On December 4, 2014, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The
Commission again stressed the importance of maintaining the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code, but
acknowledged the potential for hindered development opportunities when these provisions are applied to
properties with smaller nonconforming structures. Ultimately, the Commission voted (5-0) to recommend
that Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) be amended to exclude the addition of required garage
parking from the allowable building addition, but including it in the gross square footage from which the
total allowance is factored. Furthermore, the Commission recommended a discretionary process to review
additions to nonconforming structures in excess of 50 percent. The Commission determined the
recommended amendments preserve property rights and equity while still implementing the purpose of
Chapter 20.38. See Attachment Nos. CC 9 and CC 10.
The entire amended language is included in the attached Draft Ordinance and Administrative Draft
(Attachment Nos. CC 1 and CC 2); however, the table below provides a comparative summary of the
current standards and the proposed changes.
11-2
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment No. CC 1 - Draft Ordinance
Attachment No. CC 2 - Administrative Draft
Attachment No.
CC 3 - 01282014 CC Minutes
Attachment No.
CC 4 - 01282014 CC Staff Report
Attachment No.
CC 5 - 08212014 PC Minutes
Attachment No.
CC 6 - 08212014 PC Staff Report
Attachment No.
CC 7 - 10232014 PC Minutes
Attachment No.
CC 8 - 10232014 PC Staff Report
Attachment No.
CC 9 - 12042014 PC Minutes
Attachment No.
CC 10 - 12042014 PC Staff Report
11-3
Attachment No. CC 1
Draft Ordinance
11-4
Table 1 — Comparative Summary of Changes
Current Standard
New Standard
What maximum percentage of new
Floor Area may be added without a
Variance?
1. With the inclusion of conforming
Parking
1. 50% of existing
2. Without the inclusion of1.
50% - 75% 1 of existing
conforming Parking
2. 10% of existing
2. 10% of existing
If the addition includes conforming
Parking (Garage), is that square
YES
footage included in the maximum
NO
percentage allowed?
What is the process to exceed the
Variance2
Modification Permit2 subject
50% maximum allowance?
to additional findings and
approval
(up to 75% allowance)
Variance2
(more than 75% allowance)
1. Between 50% and 75% requires approval of a Modification Permit
2. Review and approval by Planning Commission
Alternatives
The City Council has the option to:
1) Modify the Zoning Code amendment;
2) Take no action on the Zoning Code
nonconforming structures.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
or
amendment, thereby maintaining the City's existing standards for
This action is covered by the general rule that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to
projects, which have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
NOTICING:
Notice of this item was published in the Daily Pilot at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting,
consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for
this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
11-5
ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20
(ZONING CODE) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
REVISING THE AMOUNT OF FLOOR AREA ADDITIONS
ALLOWED TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES (PA2014-083)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
On January 28, 2014, the City Council directed staff to review Zoning Code Section
20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) as it relates to smaller structures to ensure
equitable development opportunities for property owners with nonconforming structures.
2. On December 4, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted
(5-0) to recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. CA2014-004,
revising the amount of floor area additions allowed to nonconforming structures.
A public hearing was held on January 27, 2015, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of
the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council
at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION
This action is covered by the general rule that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
applies only to projects, which have potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. The current Zoning Code provisions for additions to nonconforming structures hinder
the equitable development of properties with existing smaller nonconforming structures
when compared to properties containing larger nonconforming structures.
2. The revised regulations encourage the addition of required residential garage parking
while allowing larger floor area additions than currently permitted subject to
discretionary review.
3. The purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) is
maintained with the proposed changes.
11-6
City Council Ordinance No. 2015 -
Page 2 of 4
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 20.38.040(G) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended
as follows with all other provisions of said section remaining unchanged:
G. Additions. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and the existing
nonconforming elements of the structure shall not be required to be brought into
compliance with the development standards of this Zoning Code subject to the
following limitations and the limitations provided in Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming
Parking).
1. Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the gross floor
area of the existing structure within any ten (10) year period. Expansion of
residential structures may be permitted up to a maximum of seventy-five (75)
percent with a modification permit approved by the Planning Commission in
compliance with Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and when the
following additional findings can be made:
a. The existing development is a legal nonconforming structure.
b. The architectural design and materials of the existing nonconforming
structure and proposed addition(s) are consistent with Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria).
C. The existing nonconforming structure and the proposed addition(s) will
be compatible with the existing and allowed pattern of development for
the neighborhood.
d. The level of nonconformity will not pose a health and safety threat for the
property owner, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is
consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming
Uses and Structures).
e. Limiting an expansion of the gross floor area to 50 percent of the existing
structure would be inequitable given the specific circumstances.
Gross floor area shall include existing garages and garages added in
compliance with subsection 5 below.
2. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing
structure, shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the zoning
district;
3. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards and use
regulations of this Zoning Code; and
11-7
City Council Ordinance No. 2015-_
Page 3 of 4
4. Additional parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 20.38.060
(Nonconforming Parking), below.
5. The square footage of the required residential parking area additions identified
below shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection
20.38.040(G)(1) above, but shall be included as gross floor area.
Section 2: Section 20.52.050(B)(3) (Modification Permits — Other modifications) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows with all other provisions of said
section remaining unchanged:
3. Other modifications. The following modifications are not limited in the amount
of deviation from the standard being modified.
a. Distances between structures located on the same lot;
b. Landscaping standards in compliance with Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping
Standards);
C. Maximum allowed roof area for roof mounted equipment that exceeds
the allowed height limits identified in Part 3 (Site Planning and
Development Standards);
d. Size or location of parking spaces, access to parking spaces, and
landscaping within parking areas;
e. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for uses that have
nonconforming parking;
f. Increase in allowed height, number, and area of signs;
g. Increase in the allowed height of retaining walls; and
h. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for nonconforming residential
structures as identified in Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures).
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for
any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase
11-8
City Council Ordinance No. 2015-_
Page 4 of 4
hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 4: This action shall become final and effective thirty (30) days after the adoption of
this Ordinance.
Section 5: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this
Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published pursuant to City Chart Section 414.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach held on the 27th day of January, 2015, and adopted on the 10th day of February, 2015,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
Edward D. Selich
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
OFFICE OF �Y ATTORNEY:
Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney
11-9
Attachment No. CC 2
Administrative Draft
11-10
CA2014-004 (PA2014-083)
Administrative Draft
Zoning Code Section 20.38.040(G)
G. Additions. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and the existing
nonconforming elements of the structure shall not be required to be brought into
compliance with the development standards of this Zoning Code subject to the following
limitations and the limitations provided in Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking).
1. Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the gross floor
area of the existing structure within any ten (10) year period;. Expansion of
compliance with Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and when the following
additional findings can be made:
a. The existing development is a legal nonconforming structure.
b. The architectural design and materials of the existing nonconforming
structure and proposed addition(s) are consistent with Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria).
c. The existing nonconforming structure and proposed addition(s) will be
compatible with the existing and allowed pattern of development for the
neighborhood.
d. The level of nonconformity will not pose a health and safety threat for the
property owner, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is consistent
with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and
Structures).
e. Limiting an expansion of the gross floor area to fifty (50) percent of the
existing structure would be inequitable given the specific circumstances.
Gross floor area shall include existing garages and garages added in compliance
with subsection 5 below.
2. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing
structure, shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the zoning district;
3. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards and use
regulations of this Zoning Code ; and
4. Additional parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 20.38.060
(Nonconforming Parking), below.
5. The square footage of the required residential parking area additions identified
CA2014-004 (PA2014-083)
Administrative Draft
Required Parking
Maximum Excluded Areas
One -car arae
200 square feet, maximum
Two -car arae
400 s uare feet maximum
Three -car garage
600 square feet, maximum
Zoning Code Section 20.52.050(B)(3)
3. Other modifications. The following modifications are not limited in the amount
of deviation from the standard being modified.
a. Distances between structures located on the same lot;
b. Landscaping standards in compliance with Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping
Standards);
C. Maximum allowed roof area for roof mounted equipment that exceeds the
allowed height limits identified in Part 3 (Site Planning and Development
Standards);
d. Size or location of parking spaces, access to parking spaces, and
landscaping within parking areas;
e. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for uses that have
nonconforming parking;
f. Increase in allowed height, number, and area of signs;aad
g. Increase in the allowed height of retaining walls-.; and
h. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for nonconforming residential
structures as identified in Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures).
11-12
Attachment No. CC 3
January 28, 2014, City Council Minutes
11-13
City of Newport Beach
City Council Regular Meeting
January 28, 2014
14. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY VARIANCE NO,
VA2013-002 FOR 417 AND 419 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD(PA2013-086). [100-2014]
Community Development Directory Brandt reported that the property owner, the appellant in
this case, is requesting a continuance of the appeal of the Planning Commission decision that
occurred last year, to February 25, 2014.
Motion by Coi}ncil Member [Tenn, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Selich to continue the
item to the February 25, 2014 City Council meeting.
Mayor Hill opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public
hearing.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Gardner, Council Member Petros, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Hill,
Council Member Curry, Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle
Volume 61 - Page 436
11-14
Attachment No. CC 4
January 28, 2014, City Council Meeting
11-15
�EWPaRT = CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
�9CIF0R�� City Council Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 14
January 28, 2014
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Community Development Department
Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director
949-644-3226, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
APPROVED: p, ,IL„ A``\II
TITLE: Appeal of the Plan ningvCommission's Decision to Deny Variance
No. VA2013-002 for 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard (PA2013-
086)
ABSTRACT:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's August 22, 2013, decision to deny Variance
No. VA2013-002. The applicant's request is to maintain/remodel an existing 1,785 -
square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property including a
two -car garage and attached two -car carport. The existing duplex is nonconforming
because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback.
The proposed new construction would comply with the Zoning Code's development
standards with the exception that additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50
percent of the existing floor area. A variance is required for the proposed project as it
would result in a 104 -percent addition.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Conduct a de novo public hearing;
2. Find that the action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2014-' to uphold the Planning Commission's decision
and deny Variance No. VA2013-002 (Attachment No. CC 1).
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
I
11-16
Appeal — Variance No. VA2013-002 (PA2013-086)
January 28, 2014
Page 2
INTRODUCTION:
Proiect Settin
The property is located on the eastern portion of the Balboa Peninsula between
Coronado Street and Adams Street. It is a typical 30 -foot -wide by 90 -foot -Jeep lot that
is rectangular in shape and topographically flat.
Proiect Description
The applicant proposes to maintain and remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex
and to add 1,989 square feet. The existing structure is nonconforming because it
encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Although all
new construction will comply with the Zoning Code's development standards, the
existing nonconforming structure will remain. Additions to nonconforming structures are
limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area by Newport Beach Municipal Code
("NBMC") Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. A
variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 104 -percent addition
(54 percent over the allowable limitation).
The proposed project will maintain the existing ground unit and add a two -car garage
(345 square feet) with an attached two -car carport to the rear of the property.
Connected to the garage will be a sun/laundry room along with a full bathroom and
storage closets (195 square feet). The upper unit will be expanded by 1,449 square feet
including a 947 -square -foot addition above the garage and carport areas and a 502 -
square -foot third -floor master bedroom and bathroom. Also proposed is a 608 -square -
foot roof deck and 187 square feet of additional deck area on the second floor.
A more detailed analysis of the project is included in the excerpts from the Planning
Commission staff report from August 22, 2013, which is attached as Attachment No. CC
5. The full staff report is available at www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1325.
Background
Planning Commission Hearing and Decision
On August 22, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
reviewed the applicant's request. Four members of the public spoke in support of the
project and one member of the public spoke in opposition. Those present in support
stated that there is a need for redevelopment within the area and expressed concems
with weekly rentals while asserting the units would be owner -occupied by the Horrnann
family. The member of the public present in opposition expressed concerns related to
garage access from the alley and maintenance of private views. The applicant's
2
11-17
Appeal — Variance No. VA2013-002 (PA2013-086)
January 28, 2014
Page 3
representative stated the existing building on the project site was a unique physical
characteristic of the property and should be considered as a development constraint.
It was clarified by a member of the Planning Commission that a unique physical
characteristic was relative to the lot itself and not built structures on the lot. After
considering the concerns and evidence presented, the majority of the Planning
Commission determined that there were insufficient facts in support of the required
findings and acted to deny the Variance application with a 5 — 2 vote (see Attachment
Nos. CC 4 and CC 6 for the adopted resolution and minutes from the August 22, 2013,
Planning Commission meeting).
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
On September 5, 2013, the property owners, Greg and Sharon Hormann, filed an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The appellants believe the property is
subject to special circumstances with which strict application of the Zoning Code would
deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The appeal
application and accompanying statements have been attached as Attachment No. CC
3.
Alternatives
If the City Council finds the facts do support the findings required to grant approval of
the Variance application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment
No. CC 2), reversing the August 22, 2013, decision of the Planning Commission to deny
the Variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Should the City Council act to deny the request, the project would be exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Section 15270 states projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves
are not subject to CEQA review.
Should the City Council act to approve the Variance, the project would be categorically
exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines — Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This
exemption includes construction of a duplex in a residential area. The proposed project
is a substantial addition to an existing duplex to be constructed in the R-2 (Two -Unit
Residential) Zoning District.
NOTICING:
Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of
property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -
3
11-18
Appeal — Variance No. VA2013-002 (PA2013-086)
January 28, 2014
Page 4
way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least
10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal
Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted
at City Hall and on the City website.
Submitted by:
Kimberly BrandOAltP
Director
,
Attachments:
CC 1 Draft Resolution to Deny
CC 2 Draft Resolution to Approve
CC 3 Application to Appeal the Planning Commission Decision
CC 4 Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918
CC 5 August 22, 2013, Planning Commission Staff Report
CC 6 Minutes from August 22, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting
4
11-19
Attachment No. CC 1
Draft Resolution to Deny
W1
11-20
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING VARIANCE NO.
VA2013-002 TO ADD MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE
EXISTING FLOOR AREA TO A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX
LOCATED AT 417 AND 419 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD
(PA2013-086).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by John Loomis of Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. on behalf of
the property owner, with respect to property located at 417 and 419 East Balboa
Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 8 of Block"i of Tract Balboa in the county of
Orange, State of California, as per Map record'
edin Book 4, Page 11 of Miscellaneous
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorderof said County requesting approval of a
variance. / >
2. The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the"existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to
add 1,989 square feet on the rear ;of, the property including a two -car garage and
attached two -car carport. The existing dupleiJs no because it encroaches
into the required 3 -foot side:: -setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. The proposed new
construction would comply with the Zoning Code -required development standards.
Pursuant to the Zoning' C'ode, additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50
percent of the existing.floor. area. Therefore, a variance is required to approve the
proposed project as it would result in a 104 -percent addition.
3. The subject property is located within the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and
the General Plan Land .Use Element category is Two -Unit Residential (RT).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is Two -Unit Residential — (30.0 — 39.99 DU/AC) (RT -E).
5. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2013, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
meeting.
6. The Planning Commission determined findings for approval could not be made and
denied the Variance application.
7. On September 5, 2013, property owners Greg and Sharon Hormann filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission's action.
7
11-21
City Council Resolution No.
Page 2 of 4
8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 28, 2014, in the Council
Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council considered
evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS
In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the
following findings are set forth: n
A. There are special or unique circumstances or, conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings; topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally torother properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification;
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property
of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification;
C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights bf the applicant;
D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district;
E. 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; and
F. 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.
In this particular case, City Council has determined that none of the findings can be made for
the following reasons:
1. The subject property is a typical 30 -foot by 90 -foot lot that is flat, rectangular in shape,
and has no distinguishing features from the other Two -Unit Residential (R-2)
properties in the immediate vicinity. The zoning change from mixed-use to residential
does not constitute a unique circumstance inasmuch as several properties throughout
the City have undergone zoning changes and may have nonconforming structures.
Tmplt 03108111
0
11-22
City Council Resolution No. _
Paae 3 of 4
Each property is granted the same rights under Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming
Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code.
2. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures. This
provision is granted to all properties with nonconforming structures regardless of
zoning classification. Although maintenance of the existing structure will preclude the
property owner from building to the maximum floor area limitation (two times the
buildable area), maintaining the existing structure is the choice of the property owner.
If the property owner opted to demolish and reconstruct within the standards, the
maximum floor area limit would be permitted. The limitation on additions to
nonconforming structures is intended to encourage conformance over time. Granting
of the variance request will substantiate and prolong the life of the nonconforming
structure rather than encourage compliance as purposed in Chapter 20.38.
3. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures and the
applicant is afforded the same property rights anted to other nonconforming
properties. The property owner could demolish4n&econstruct within the standards
which would allow the maximum floor area limit '�\\
4. Granting of the variance will allow a 4'04 -percent addition of the existing square
footage whereas the Zoning Code limits additions to nonconforming structures at 50
percent. All other properties within the-vicinit'yare granted the same right if there exists
a nonconforming structure. Allo wingian addition That is 61 percent greater than what is
allowed by code is a special privilefven-tFie nonconforming status of the structure
ZV
on the property and the facfthat�all nonconforming structures are granted the same
rights under the Zoning Code. ) \\
N
5. Although the subject pr`perty is designated for two-family residential use and the
granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the
�.
area, it will remain nonconforming inasmuch as it does not comply with the Zoning
Code and it is not clear whether or not it will result in additional traffic, parking, or
demand for other services:
6. There are no special circumstances on the property that warrant the granting of a
variance. The Zoning Code intends to promote orderly development consistent with
current code regulations. Acknowledgement of the existing structure that encroaches
into the entirety of both side setback areas as well as the front setback area is
inconsistent with this purpose.
7. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Single -Family
Residential Dwellings) discusses compatibility with neighborhood development in
terms of density, scale, and street facing elevations. The existing, nonconforming 3 -
foot encroachments into the required 3 -foot side setbacks coupled with the
encroachment into the front setback create a street -facing building facade that is
inconsistent with other structures in the surrounding area under the same zoning
classification.
Tmpll: 03/08111
11-23
City Council Resolution No.
Page 4of4
8. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Variance No. VA2013-002
(PA2013-086) and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and
the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
3. This decision was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and
of itself or in combination with other decisions in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a
precedent for future decisions.
4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted, at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on`the 28th ,day of January, 2014, by the
following vote, to wit: / `_
\<i
< j
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES; COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Tmplt 03/08/11
MAYOR
10
11-24
Attachment No. CC 2
Draft Resolution to Approve
11
11-25
12
11-26
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO.
VA2013-002 TO ADD MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE
EXISTING FLOOR AREA TO A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX
LOCATED AT 417 AND 419 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD
(PA2013-086).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by John Loomis of Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. on behalf of
the property owner, with respect to property located at 417 and 419 East Balboa
Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 8 of Block 4 of Tract Balboa in the county of
Orange, State of Califomia, as per Map recorded in Book 4, Page 11 of Miscellaneous
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said Cou` requesting approval of a
variance. '
2. The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to
add 1,989 square feet on the rear-& the property including a two -car garage and
attached two -car carport. The existing duplex; is nonconforming because it encroaches
into the required 3 -foot side -setbacks. arid 5 -foot front setback. The proposed new
construction would comply with the Zoning Code -required development standards.
Pursuant to the Zoning Code,,a lditiorj :to nonconforming structures are limited to 50
percent of the existing floor area. Therefore, a variance is required to approve the
proposed project as it would, result in a 104 -percent addition.
3. The subject property is located within the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and
the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two -Unit Residential (RT).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is Two -Unit Residential — (30.0 — 39.99 DU/AC) (RT -E).
5. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2013, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
meeting.
6. The Planning Commission determined findings for approval could not be made and
denied the Variance application.
7. On September 5, 2013, property owners Greg and Sharon Hormann filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission's action.
13
11-27
City Council Resolution No. _
Pape 2 of 5
8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 28, 2014, in the Council
Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council considered
evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15303 Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures), which includes construction of a duplex. The proposed
project is new construction to add onto the rear of an existing structure and maintenance of a
duplex development on the subject property.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variar
following findings and facts in support of such
Findinq:
of the wZort Beach Municipal Code, the
:,
igs are set,fgrth:
V
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, siie;' -surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical
zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Finding:
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Finding:
C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Finding:
D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
24
11-28
City Council Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 5
Facts in Support of Finding:
Finding:
E. 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, safely, or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Finding:
F. 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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ,CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE TO: �.'�..
1. Approve Variance No. VA2013-002 and reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference.'
2. This resolution shall "take effect'immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and
the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
3. 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.
4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 28th day of January, 2014, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
15
11-29
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City Council Resolution No.
Paae 4 of 5
win
11-30
City Council Resolution No. _
Paqe 5 of 5
l�F a Hi9ViVl
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
17
11-31
28
11-32
Attachment No. CC 3
Application to Appeal the Planning Commission
Decision
2j
11-33
20
11-34
MY OF NEWPORT BEACH Fr" .'\/EU
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PL ANNING•CQiIf MF5Sl61i®: 21
Application No.
Name of Appellant Greg & Sharon Hormann
or person filing: Phone:
Address: 417 and 419 E. Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
Date of Planning Commission decision: August 22 20 13
Regarding application of: PA2013-086
-C' c=:.
-714/984 46f2. 1
for
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission)
See attached. 7l
n
m
V I 1
V (,i
We feel that there are special circumstances regarding this project that
Reasons for Appeal
privileges en�joyed by other owners in the vicinity if the zonin; code was
strictly enforced.
Compliance with residential se acs would require demolition an
reconstruction of the existing duplex.
of
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Q�� f `i f✓(rV
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received:
cc: Appellant
Planning (furnish one set or mailing labels for mailing)
File
Date `i'- x1-13
2013 .
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.64.030
Appeal Fee: $4,187.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2011-106 adopted on 11-22-11.
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700-5000)
21
11-35
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to maintain and remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex
and to add 1,989 square feet. The existing structure is nonconforming because it
encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Although all
new construction will comply with the Zoning Code=required development standards, the
existing nonconforming structure will remain. Additions to nonconforming structures are
limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area by Newport Beach Municipal Code
("NBMC") Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. A
variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 111 -percent addition
(61 percent over the allowable limitation).
The proposed project will maintain the existing ground unit and add a two -car garage
(345 square feet) with an attached two -car carport to the rear of the property.
Connected to the garage will be a sun/laundry room along with a full bathroom and
storage closets (195 square feet). The upper unit will be expanded by 1,449 square feet
including a 947 -square -foot addition above the garage and carport areas and a 502 -
square -foot third -floor master bedroom and bathroom. Also proposed is a 608 -square -
foot roof deck and 187 square feet of additional deck area on the second floor.
22
11-36
Receipt #1011371.005
Recreation & Senior Services Dept.
100 Civic Center Drive
Bay E
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 644-3151
FAX: (949) 644-3155
Email: recreation@newportbeachca.gov
DROP-IN CUSTOMER
q Payment Summary
Check:
$4,187.00 Check 9 7318
Credit Card:
$0
Account:
$0
Financial Aid:
$0
Total Received:
$4,187.00
_v Transactions_
Customer Description
nrop4n Customer CC Planning Commission Appeal
ACtlon: r2 ] :'t $ r:C
He= phone: --
1
--
In: 1
Receipt #1011371.005
Sep 5, 2013 2:26 PM
Prepared By: jbattioli
Customer ID: 1
Home phone: --, Work phone: --
Cash:
$0
Memo:
$0
Gift Certificate:
$0
Total Payments:
Payment Plan:
$4,187.00
$0
J
Charge
$4,187.00
Total Charges $4,187.00
Total Payments $4,187.00
Balance $0
Page 1 of 1
Thank you For your choosing Newport Beach Recreation & Senior Services. Please visit us
online at www.newportbeachca.gov
https://activenct0 i 7.active.com/cnbreg/servleUshowReceipt.sdi?reccipLheader_id=91493... 09aD013
11-37
:24
11-38
Attachment N®e CC 4
Adopted Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1918
25
11-39
20
11-40
RESOLUTION NO. 1918
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING VARIANCE NO. VA2013-
002 TO ADD MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING
FLOOR AREA TO A NONCONFORMING DUPLEX LOCATED AT
417 AND 419 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD (PA2013-086)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
An application was filed by John Loomis of Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. on behalf of
the property owner, with respect to property located at 417 and 419 East Balboa
Boulevard, and legally described as Lof 8 of Block 4 of Tract Balboa in the county of
Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 4, Page 11 of Miscellaneous
Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County requesting approval of a
variance.
2. The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to
add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property including a two -car garage and
attached two -car carport. All new construction will comply with the Zoning Code -required
development standards: The existing duplex is nonconforming because it encroaches
into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Pursuant to the Zoning
Code, additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing Floor
area. Therefore, a variance is required to approve the proposed project as` it would result
in a 111 -percent addition.
3. The subject property is located within the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and
the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two -Unit Residential (RT).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is Two -Unit Residential — (30.0 — 39.99 DU/AC) (RT -E).
5. A public hearing was held on August 22, 2013, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the Calfomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
27
11-41
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918
Paoe 2 of 4
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS
In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the
following findings are set forth:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification;
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property
of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification;
C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant;
D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district,
E. 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, orgeneral welfare of persons residing or worldng
in the neighborhood; and
F. 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.
In this particular case, staff believes none of the findings can be made for the following
reasons:
The subject property is a typical 30 -foot by 90 -foot lot that is flat, rectangular in shape,
and has no distinguishing features from the other Two -Unit Residential (R-2)
properties in the immediate vicinity. The zoning change from mixed-use to residential
does not constitute a unique circumstance inasmuch as several properties throughout
the City have undergone zoning changes and may have nonconforming structures.
Each property is granted the same rights under Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming
Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code.
2. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures. This
provision is granted to all properties with nonconforming structures regardless of
zoning classification. Although maintenance of the existing structure will preclude the
property owner from building to the maximum floor area limitation (two times the
buildable area), maintaining the existing structure is the choice of the property owner.
If the property owner opted to demolish and reconstruct within the standards, the
maximum floor area limit would be permitted. The limitation on additions to
04-24-2013
WN
11-42
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918
Page 3 of 4
nonconforming structures is intended to encourage conformance over time. Granting
of the variance request will substantiate and prolong the life of the nonconforming
structure rather than encourage compliance as purposed in Chapter 20.38.
3. The Zoning Code allows a 50 -percent addition to nonconforming structures and the
applicant is afforded the same property rights granted to other nonconforming
properties. The property owner could demolish and reconstruct within the standards
which would allow the maximum floor area limit.
4. Granting of the variance will allow a 111 -percent addition of the existing square
footage whereas the Zoning Code limits additions to nonconforming structures at 50
percent. All other properties within the vicinity are granted the same right if there exists
a nonconforming structure. Allowing an addition that is 61 percent greater than what is
allowed by code is a special privilege given the nonconforming status of the structure
on the property and the fact that all nonconforming structures are granted the same
rights under the Zoning Code.
5. Although the subject property is designated for two-family residential use and the
granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the
area, it will remain nonconforming inasmuch as it does not comply with the Zoning
Code and it is not clear whether or not it will result in additional traffic, parking, or
demand for other services.
6. There are no special circumstances on the property that warrant the granting of a
variance. The Zoning Code intends to promote orderly development consistent with
current code regulations. Acknowledgement of the existing structure that encroaches
into the entirety of both side setback areas as well as the front setback area is
inconsistent with this purpose.
7. General Plan Land Use Policy LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Single -Family
Residential Dwellings) discusses compatibility with neighborhood development in
terms of density, scale, and street facing elevations. The existing, nonconforming 3 -
foot encroachments into the required 3 -foot side setbacks coupled with the
encroachment into the front setback create a street -facing building fagade that is
inconsistent with other structures in the surrounding area under the same zoning
classification.
8. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Variance No.
VA2013-002.
04242013
'?9
11-43
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918
Page 4 of 4
2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2013.
AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, and Tucker
NOES: Brown and Myers
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
No
M
04-24-2013
"Pi
11-44
Attachment N®. CC 5
August 22, 2013, Planning Commission
Staff Report
31
11-45
32
11-46
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
August 22, 2013 Meeting
Agenda Item 2
SUBJECT: Hormann Variance - (PA2013-086)
417 and 419 E. Balboa Boulevard
Variance No. VA2013-002
APPLICANT: John Loomis, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
(949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to maintain/remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and
to add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property including a two -car garage and
attached two -car carport. All new construction will comply with the Zoning Code -
required development standards. The existing duplex is nonconforming because it
encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Additions to
nonconforming structures are limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area. A variance
is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 111 -percent addition.
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. _ denying Variance No. VA2013-002 (Attachment No. PC
1).
33
11-47
Hormann Variance
August 22, 2013
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
Subject Property
o^°ff,
i4u,
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
F1
41
F;r —
LOCATION I GENERAL PLAN I ZONING I CURRENT
11 NORTH I Two -Unit Residential (RT1 I Two -Unit Residential (R-2) I DUDlexes 11
11 WEST 11 Two -Unit Residential (RT) I Two -Unit Residential (R-2) I Dunlexes 11
34
11-48
Hormann Variance
August 22, 2013
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Proiect Settin
The property is located on the eastern portion of the Balboa Peninsula between
Coronado Street and Adams Street. It is a typical 30 -foot -wide by 90 -foot -deep lot that
is rectangular in shape and topographically flat.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to maintain and remodel the existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex
and to add 1,989 square feet. The existing structure is nonconforming because it
encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front setback. Although all
new construction will comply with the Zoning Code -required development standards, the
existing nonconforming structure will remain. Additions to nonconforming structures are
limited to 50 percent of the existing floor area by Newport Beach Municipal Code
("NBMC") Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code. A
variance is required for the proposed project as it would result in a 111 -percent addition
(61 percent over the allowable limitation).
The proposed project will maintain the existing ground unit and add a two -car garage
(345 square feet) with an attached two -car carport to the rear of the property.
Connected to the garage will be a sun/laundry room along with a full bathroom and
storage closets (195 square feet). The upper unit will be expanded by 1,449 square feet
including a 947 -square -foot addition above the garage and carport areas and a 502 -
square -foot third -floor master bedroom and bathroom. Also proposed is a 608 -square -
foot roof deck and 187 square feet of additional deck area on the second floor.
Background
The existing 1,785 -square -foot structure was built in 1940 within the Commercial (C-1)
Zoning District as mixed-use with a commercial storefront at the ground floor and one
residential apartment above. Given that the lot was developed in a commercial district,
no front or side setbacks were required and the structure was constructed to the side
and front property lines. After it was initially developed, Districting Map No. 11 was
adopted to require a 5 -foot front setback along East Balboa Boulevard.
In 1951, the existing commercial storefront was converted into a residential unit which
created a residential duplex on the property.
On February 14, 1972, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1425 which changed the
zoning classification from C-1 to Two -Unit Residential (R-2). Since the R-2 District
requires 3 -foot side setbacks, the structure became nonconforming. In the 1970s after
the rezoning to R-2, four of the properties within the subject block were redeveloped as
duplexes in compliance with the setback requirements.
35
11-49
Hormann Variance
August 22, 2013
Page 4
On September 12, 1994, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 94-44 which placed the
block into the Balboa Village Specific Plan (SP -8) Zoning District as Residential
Professional (RP). The RP designation required 3 -foot side setbacks, so the subject
structure remained nonconforming. In 2001 two of the properties on the block were
redeveloped with single-family residences in 2001 and one mixed-use structure was
converted to a single-family use and was subsequently remodeled in 2007. This
structure encroaches into the 5 -foot front setback; however, it still provides the required
3 -foot setbacks.
The 2010 Zoning Code update returned the block to Two -Unit Residential (R-2) and
current development standards require 3 -foot side setbacks in addition to the 5 -foot
front setback along East Balboa Boulevard. Six of the other eight properties on the
block have been redeveloped and comply with the required setbacks.
DISCUSSION
Analysis
General Plan & Coastal Land Use Plan
The subject property is designated "Two -Unit Residential' (RT) by the Land Use
Element of the General Plan ("GP") and "Two -Unit Residential' (RT -E) by the Coastal
Land Use Plan ("CLUP") of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program.
Land Use Policy 5.1.5 of the GP states that compatibility with neighborhood
development in density, scale, and street facing elevations should be considered a
guiding principle for residential development. Similarly, Policy 2.7-1 of the CLUP states
the City should continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and
height limits for residential development to protect the character of established
neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources.
Although the proposed density is consistent with what is allowed by both the GP and
CLUP, the proposed project will substantiate an existing nonconforming structure that is
incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood inasmuch as the setback
encroachments create a building fagade that appears larger and out of scale.
Zoning Code
The existing structure was initially made nonconforming by the establishment of
Districting Map No. 11 in 1950 which created a required 5 -foot front setback along East
Balboa Boulevard. Subsequently in 1972, the rezoning of the property from Commercial
(C-1) to Two -Unit Residential (R-2) caused the structure to become more
nonconforming as the development standards prescribed 3 -foot side setbacks. Pursuant
to NBMC Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning Districts General Development
3o
11-50
Hormann Variance
August 22, 2013
Page 5
Standards) and Setback Map S -2-E, 3 -foot side setbacks and a 5 -foot front setback are
required. Given that the existing structure is considered legal nonconforming, due to
encroachments into the front and side setbacks, it is subject to NBMC Section
20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) which limits additions to 50 percent of the
existing gross floor area within a 10 -year period.
Variance Request
The existing structure is legal nonconforming because it encroaches into the required
front and side setback areas; therefore, it is subject to the development restrictions
prescribed by NBMC Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) which limits
additions to 50 percent of the existing gross floor area. In this case, a maximum addition
of 892.5 square feet would be allowed. The applicant requests an approval of a
variance to allow maintenance of the existing nonconformities in conjunction with a 111 -
percent addition (1,989 square feet) to the tear of the property.
Section 20.52.090.F (Variances, Findings and Decision) of the Zoning Code requires
the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving a variance:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification;
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an
identical zoning classification;
C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant;
D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same
zoning district;
E. 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; and
F. 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.
Staff believes that none of the findings for approval of the variance request can be
made.
37
11-51
Hormann Variance
August 22, 2013
Page 6
The surrounding area is primarily developed with residential duplexes which maintain
the required setbacks. Most of the properties appear to comply with the 5 -foot front
setback requirement as the built structures are setback from the street.
The existing structure on the subject property encroaches into the entirety of both 3 -foot
side setbacks and 3 feet 7 inches into the 5 -foot front setback. These encroachments
contribute to an inconsistent development pattern along East Balboa Boulevard as
shown in the figure below.
Relative to Findings 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'F', there are no special or unique circumstances
that warrant the granting of a variance and other properties within the vicinity are
granted the same provisions when a nonconforming condition exists. Pursuant to NBMC
go
11-52
Hormann Variance
August 22, 2013
Page 7
Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures), nonconforming structures are limited to
an addition that is 50 percent of the existing gross floor area of the existing structure
within any 10 -year period. The intent of this limitation is to allow orderly development
while encouraging nonconforrnities to become conforming over time. All structures that
are considered nonconforming are granted this same privilege by the Zoning Code.
Granting of the variance request to allow a 111 -percent addition to the existing structure
could be considered a special privilege as other properties are limited to a 50 -percent
addition. Additionally the lot is rectangular in shape, relatively flat, and not constrained
by topography.
With respect to Finding 'D', granting of the variance request could constitute granting of
a special privilege. Six of the eight other properties on the immediate block have
redeveloped as conforming duplex or single-family structures. Of the remaining two, the
property at 403 East Balboa Boulevard was developed as a seven -unit apartment
complex in 1959 and remains legal nonconforming. The property at 407 East Balboa
Boulevard is a legal nonconforming single-family structure that encroaches 5 feet into
the required 5 -foot front setback, but maintains the code -required 3 -foot side setbacks.
It should be noted this nonconforming structure was granted a modification permit in
2007 to allow an addition between 25 and 50 percent of the existing gross floor area —
an amount that is now allowed by right in the current Zoning Code.
It is acknowledged the structure has existed for 73 years without proving detrimental
and Finding 'E' could be supported; however, staff believes the code allowance of a 50 -
percent addition allows reasonable development of the property and in this case all
findings for approval cannot be made.
Alternatives
The Planning Commission may determine that the findings for approval can be made
and approve the variance by adopting the draft resolution for approval (Attachment No.
PC 2).
The Planning Commission may also make the same findings for approval, but may
approve a modified project for a smaller addition.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
Should the Planning Commission act to approve the request, the project would be
categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines — Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
This exemption includes construction of a duplex in a residential area. The proposed
39
11-53
Hormann Variance
August 22, 2013
Page 8
project is a substantial addition to an existing duplex to be constructed in the R-2 (Two -
Unit Residential) Zoning District.
Public Notice
Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of
property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-
way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least
10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal
Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted
at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:
�. ��
Be ja i M. eba
As ' tant Planner
ATTACHMENTS
C r stt'n r e l
a o i f p v
PC 3 Applicant's Justitication
PC 4 Applicant's Letter of July 23, 2013
PC 5 Project Plans
Submitted by:
*Clw
a—Wisn—esi, ICP, Deputy Director
Template.dotx: 05/24113,
11-54
Attachment No. PC 3
Applicant's Justification
4-1
11-55
Hormann Residence Project Description
Remodel existing duplex. Maintain existing non -conforming side yard setbacks.
Construct new 2 -car garage and 2 -car carport, plus add 1.95 SF at first floor. Construct a
new 947 SF addition to the second floor unit above the garage and carport and add a new
502 SF partial third floor. Construct new decks at the second floor (191 SF) and third
floor (609 SF). Fire sprinkler existing residence and proposed additions.
Hormann Residence Project Variance Justification
1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g. 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.
There are special circumstances regarding this specific parcel that have caused the
existing conditions to become non -conforming. The existing building was constructed
about 1940 when the area was zoned Commercial. The lower floor was a commercial use
with a residence above. As a result, the lower floor was built to "0" side yard setbacks.
In the 1960's or 1970's, the zoning was changed to R-2. R-2 zoning requires a 3 ft. wide
setback at each side yard. The result is that the property that was originally fully
conforming to the original zoning is now legal non -conforming.
2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under and identical
zoning classification.
It is our understanding that strict code compliance would limit the amount of area that
can be added to die site to 50% of the existing building area, provided that the parking
was brought into conformance. This is substantially less tban the two times the buildable
area (minus open space) allowed if there was no non -conformity. Therefore, the non-
conformity, caused by the city changing the zone has created a hardship for the Owner by
reducing the maximum buildable area for the site.
3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
The existing building has been well maintained and is in good condition. It would be a
severe financial hardship to remove the existing encroachment into the required side
yards. This would make the proposed building expansion financially unfeasible.
PA2013-066 for VA2013-002
417 & 419 E. Balboa Boulevard
Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. — John Loomis
,4.2
11-56
4. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege nconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Granting of this Variance application will not create a special privilege because it would
allow the construction of the same maximum floor area as allowed elsewhere in this
zone.
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 conveniene, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood.
Granting of this Variance will not be detrimental or endanger neightboring properties.
We have met with the Fire Department and Building Department to discuss this matter.
The existing side yard walls are 8 in. thick CMU construction at the first floor that equal
over a 4 Hr. 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. Also, the
Fire Department is satisfied with access to the site.
Because the proposed three story addition is located on the rear half of the property, the
Planning Department has- no concerns about the scale and mass of the project because
two story massing is maintained along Balboa Boulevard. They feel that the proposed
project will be consistent and compatible to the character of the existing neighborhood.
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 plata.
The granting of this Variance shall not conflict with the intent of this code because the
Variance process was created to deal with existing anomalies such as this situation. No
precedent is being set because by the approval of this Variance results in the same
development rights already enjoyed by neighboring properties in this zone.
43
Attachment No. PC 4
Applicant's Letter of July 23, 2013
44
11-58
thirtieth
i t 1r a"
k_
l/IPI Z. t
t ?
July 23, 2013
City of Newport Beach
Mr. Patrick Alford, Planning Director
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Hormann Residence Variance Application
417- 419 E. Balboa Boulevard
PA2013-086
Dear Mr. Alford:
founding principals
john c. loomis, architect
james c. wilson, architect
principal
elwood I. gulley, architect
The purpose of this letter is to ask that the City Planning Department reconsider the above
referenced project and support of this Variance application due to the following two reasons:
Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. (TSA) made every serious effort to coordinate with staff on
this project, and to make recommendations to our clients based on staff comments and staff
support. We met with staff on five (5) different occasions to review various design
alternatives. During our last meeting, we met with Jay Garcia to explain that we had been
successful in solving technical issues and obtaining support for retaining the existing
structure from both the Building and Fire Departments.
The Fire Department felt that the existing 8 inch thick, fully grouted concrete block walls at
the side property lines would yield a fire rating of 4 -hours, making this a much safer
condition than most unrated buildings in the R2 zone. They also requested that both the
existing building and the new addition be fully fire sprinklered. The Building Department
concurred with the Fire Department comments and also asked that the existing small
bathroom window on the east sidewall of the property be removed and infilled with block
construction. TSA and our client's were pleased with the Fire Department and Building
Department support and felt that their requirements were reasonable.
I explained to Jay, who I have known for 25+ years, that even with the technical problems
solved we would not recommend that our clients pursue a Variance unless the planning staff
architecture historical rehabilitation planning
2821 newpon blvd. ne•wpon beach califomia 92663
phone (949) 6733-2643 fax (949) 673-8547 email: tsainc@aol.com
45
11-59
would support the project. He reviewed the drawings and photos to examine issues such as
neighborhood context, mass, and scale of the project and the compatibility of Balboa
Boulevard street elevation. Since the proposed three-story addition will be located on the
rear half of the site, Jay felt that the existing street elevation is consistent in terms of mass
and scale with neighboring properties. He also felt that the project, as proposed, was
consistent with, and compatible to the existing neighborhood context and that staff would
support this project. I then asked him specifically whether staff would support our Variance
application because I was reluctant to proceed without staff support. He said, "Yes". I
relayed Jay's comments to my clients and, based on his commitment of staff support, they
agreed to proceed with the Variance application. At that point in time, I had no idea that Jay
would soon retire.
About a month later, upon my return from a trip to Egypt and long hospital stay in Germany,
I found out that Jay is retired and that staff is now not supportive of our Variance application.
We requested a meeting with staff to discuss the matter.
On June 24th, we met with Ben Zdeba and Gregg Ramirez. Ben explained his reasoning in
not supporting this Variance as follows:
He did not feel that this application meets the criteria as a unique circumstance; and he also
felt supporting the Variance would result in sustaining the existing setback nonconformity
for some time into the future.
While we can understand Ben's point of view, we feel a more in-depth review of the facts
clearly shows that the circumstances regarding this project are very unusual and unique to the
site and the existing "0" setbacks arc not detrimental to the neighborhood visually or from a
life safety perspective.
The existing structure was originally constructed in 1940, as a 2 -bay commercial space at the
first floor and a single-family apartment at the second floor. At that time, the area was zoned
C-1 commercial with residential uses allowed at the second floor; the required setbacks at the
C-1 first floor commercial space were "0" for front and side yards. The sidewalls located at
the property lines were constructed with 8 in. thick concrete block that was fully grouted,
equivalent today to a 4 -hour rated firewall. The setbacks for the residential unit at the second
floor were front 5 ft. and sides 3 ft. Many buildings similar to this structure still exist
directly to the east of this property on E. Balboa Boulevard where the zoning is still
commercial.
In 1972, the City elected to change the zone in the 400 East Block from commercial to R2.
Inherent in any zone change from commercial to residential is the need for 3 ft. minimum
side yard setbacks for light and ventilation and egress. This resulting zone change created a
new nonconformity at 417 & 419 E. Balboa Boulevard where no nonconformity had existed
previously.
417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard — Page 2
TO
11-60
Over the years, most of the neighboring older structures began to deteriorate and were torn
down and replaced with new, larger duplex units during the 1970's and 1980's. My client's
property was apparently very well built and well maintained. The lower floor that was
originally a two bay commercial space was apparently converted to a second residential unit
in 1972, after the zone change. It is interesting to note that this conversion and remodel to
residential use was permitted without any requirement to correct the non -conforming
setbacks. I think the City uses the term "legal, non -conforming" to describe this condition,
since the work was fully permitted.
When my client's purchased the property in 2008, it was their intent to construct a substantial
addition over a new garage and carport addition at the rear of the property and to minimize
work at the existing front building. The purpose of the addition was to accommodate family
gatherings with their kids and grandkids during holidays and weekends.
There were several design options that we considered. The first was to bring the parking into.
conformity, but keep the existing setback nonconformities. This approach would limit the
size of any addition (including the garage) to 50% of the existing building area, given the
existing nonconforming setbacks. This would mean that my clients could add only about
600 sq. ft. of actual living area to the existing building. Unfortunately, they could not
accommodate their program requirements within this limited new area.
So, the only remaining options were to either correct the nonconformity, or apply for a
Variance. This would allow my client's to fully develop their property to meet their program
requirements and buildup to 2x the net buildable area minus the open space requirement, just
like their neighbors.
To help evaluate correcting the nonconforming setbacks, we have had two reputable
contractors look at this building. Roth concluded that to increase the side setbacks would
require the demolition of the entire existing structure and rebuilding. This would mean that
my client's, who have made substantial cosmetic improvements to the upper unit, would have
to demolish their perfectly serviceable home and start over with a vacant lot, and rebuild to
correct the existing nonconforming setbacks. This would more than double the cost of their
proposed project and make it financially unfeasible. So, the only realistic remaining option
was to consider a Variance.
While I realize that economic hardship is not a justification for the approval of a Variance, I
would hope that the Planning Commission would think that having to demolish an existing
duplex to eliminate an existing nonconformity to enjoy normal property rights is a "unique
circumstance" particularly when the nonconformity is not detrimental to neighboring
properties and the proposed project is consistent with the neighborhood design context.
Regarding Bcn's second concern about perpetuating the nonconformity, if the nonconformity
is not detrimental to the neighbors, is not a fire hazard or a threat to life safety and is not
inconsistent with the neighborhood design context, what is the benefit to the neighborhood or
417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard — Page 3
47
11-61
the city in correcting this nonconformity? The only answer is that the nonconformity would
be eliminated for its own sake. Does this really make any sense?
Did the Planning Commission that approved the zone change in 1972 anticipate this kind of
anomaly? Yes, they did. That is exactly why the Variance process was included in the
Newport Beach Zoning Code: to provide relief from strict code compliance where unusual
conditions or circumstances exist.
In conclusion, we ask that staff support this Variance based on the following findings that
justify this application:
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 does not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.
The existing building was constructed about 1940 when the area was zoned
Commercial. The lower floor was a commercial use with a residence above. As a
result, the lower floor was built to "0" side yard setbacks. In 1972, the zoning was
changed to R-2. R-2 zoning requires a 3 ft. wide setback at each side yard. The result
is that the property that was originally fully conforming to the original zoning is now
legal, non -conforming.
The circumstances are unique because the correction of the nonconformity would
require the complete demolition of the existing duplex.
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.
Strict compliance with the zoning code would limit the size of any proposed addition
to about 2,600 s.f. or about 1,000 s.f. less than allowed to neighboring properties.
3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Granting of this Variance is necessary so that my clients will not have to demolish
their duplex in order to enjoy their property rights.
4. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning districts.
Granting of this Variance Application will not create a special privilege because most
non -conformities can be corrected without requiring total demolition. This is an
unusual and unreasonable circumstance. Also, it should be noted that my clients are
417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard — Page 4
IM
11-62
correcting other existing non -conformities such as providing the necessary parking-
and
arkingand fire sprinklering at the existing residence.
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.
Granting of this Variance will not be detrimental or endanger neighboring properties.
We have met with the Fire Department and Building Department to discuss this
matter. 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.
Because the proposed three-story addition is located on the rear half of the property,
the Planning Department had no concerns about the scale and mass of the project and
has found it to be consistent and compatible to the character of the streetscape and the
existing neighborhood.
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.
The granting of this Variance will not conflict with the intent of this code because the
Variance process was created to deal with existing anomalies such as this situation.
Full compliance with the Zoning Code would require an unfair and unreasonable
remedy. The Variance process was created to provide relief from exactly these types
of situations.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
John C. Loomis
Principal
cc: Greg & Sharon Hormann
417-419 E. Balboa Boulevard — Page 5
49
11-63
Attachment No. PC 5
Project Plans
50
11-64
SYMBOLS
E) n m
P AO. uAY.ltwp
�� au vsruw
—®-- MASCII URD
'f01414aLIMOInT
J�io'Wrlo vi'mlm
� 4ll5trp:rtttllnM1}
ABBREVIATIONS
Au
MT
AW
Jam
I.Y.
61 nrvl
All:
Z'-fu100,v
1.1 }IMA[ IvvwvE Plauie
A.U}1
AP
ARCH
rRel
uMo-rRnal
A
iIAR
iirT
mrVi
Ani
rM,
CAR
ar
�a
fIR
:R
PA
pm
cl
fR
vmm
va{
R,
IC
Ms
4ru �y
crt
IT
ryn
.
N}'L
emvns
REM
za
RB
WI
—
L.—
P,
mrpym,y
UM'W51
3»PmYr)
IC
S(IIFI)
vhdLe
W
C
rainy
eM
.RRTI
SIM'R IO
rrtermy
Nrxr
I Arun
SO
yoo
I
R
vCT
sr
:Iv lw
M.r
tiT
..rv..''pieko-
lTT
evinu
T
111R
I:vpM
PA II4lacue
Utv
m'flvul
.(vaU
NP
Ilii
I¢e JteJ:
I.
IP
ryAVJ
14
wM�
t
r4Y1
M
fRA}IG
0mv
lmui
IAP
Ii�vNuvnM1 muJ
tVl
ul em
R
(m v
}44
tG4
xv J
lTG
Iro.ppd:R
IIV
PJ.mRp•
OTP.RU. �1pvn Wutl
A
W
HORMANN RESIDENCE
417 & 419 EAST BALBOA BLVD.
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663
VIIRiu rF Y MAP
�I
i;'RSA�P�.T MRQE1JmJLDM
OPRNv—mmffi
m
PROJECT SUMMARY
i,goi uAOURrssl
u>e nerurenlmn nvw.
MGT'IVRUG[N.G9:K1
OFSCRIM01'OF WORK'
0.PJI0UR C%�TIAI]WPIN. }InIMnLV
IRImNGMON.f6VIWi HI SCARGI.
".CAR. RT. LIH . SCARGa GI.ACR
GRIORi. . .RC}1RCOMA
SIORnGfi nipRS} FlWR. CUMSiRI0.Tn TL4'
iRRER..DRRmRR..'nm ..
ARDR11i l P):I4IIA9 P2SNf?Y4! MOM}N
Annmo%s.
�L� A>rsu� y3Jlil pnRnnlsr:
m}v}c oulvm:m
APR, Runnvol
C.11a
M=1AIRoN oA.UA VIIa-11.1 CRRRDA
IAIPP111'EtILY1S gT191CI
Cov}TR1rc11gV
1AR
MRn7 I
SUIofJNv
p10 -C=C HC IrTLI
f.41wi.PeeCo41fT1
AIYGY/oda Wvvvlfvh lLlil
gl In fY,lmrl. {InRmhl fel IMLI
m,Run..d.mw;y Gelcm
PROJECT TEAM
0%V ,
Al Ri691APUM INrNA\l1
CIOAVU.
I.'GW Po R! tl F RTRRA1lTi. CA[A P.MI
G°WL.. 2um1 � +vlbu®iau
CV.IIAGT: 1.,xfluorI —A
AR[IIIIPLT
11RImDlRR .A CH..ux.
ASWWIR BGI:I I. CA 9HA1.
nI: wveTYwl
PA%: �e16Fl.PM1
L}Nll lidvv
a.arMl:n
mxrnrnlr�M°nwu °ur
SHEET INDEX
CRI CRIRRI.,APLUITRMM
A-1 CYI411MGFlR9il SL[ORD fL00R
MMNkAfO.MM
A.. Glmgc Roovruwwlo.rw
x P.%Tnmx Fl.e'uwRR
AJ TP.W i1PSS.4 SFlONUfWOR PLIV
A. .Srl'TIIRD.. RnMARCOPttAN
`4N'CRR R)A CLCRAINTS
Ad r fAT[111U0. PILVAIIU:R
m r-eru oa.
e
11-65
SECOND F1 o
-------------------
S ;� Off' .�.a� �•'1 7
W�ro iv
1 II p L6iu'2
u m'wwu
i
m II
1 11 RST FLOOR
EXISTING FLOOR PLANSIDEMO. PLANS
Ihinielh _
9hM
01EhiUC19
WL
F -I
11-67
i
S
3
f
mw 50U A ELEVATIOn (
_
m.. rw.a - ---------------
WEST EL=VATION O
3
3 mv. awa
MJiN ELEVAM O
�
EiST ELEVAUD Oj
m+. rwo
EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
•w, 2
II.
---------------
EXISTING ROOF PLAN/bEMO. PLAN
•e I
11-67
I i 1 I
WDA 1 1 1
o I
O I
i i I
1 I 1 � •��
I I
s�.�o aooaaooa
m...,....,...o _� —,S
m... m..m.m.,,.eo
.........._.....
II^�g s I
y Yy� a
E� a�
Cow..mw..,.
NEW FLOOR PLANS •p 1
11-68
o
acs
s
� a
9
I
f "
I
dtF I I � F
------------
NEW ROOF PLAN •� 2
, I
—_____r_r_
I � i I IIIII
i � I
£ s I
I I I
I I
I
c
{ u C3...
I
NEW THIRD FLOOR PLAN .w ;
11-69
5 UM ELEVATION O
Pr9r 0.2�.LY�.'I)
NORM E.�A ) O
GR
EAS' ELEVA=N (D
11-70
F I
A-6
11-71
li
------ - ------
El MR:
I Fm AN M-2
------ ----
WOST
9MIMAM0 On
NEW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
F I
A-6
11-71
thirtieth
street
architects
1110
August 21, 2013
Nfr. Ben Zdeba, Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Ceuter Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Correspondence
Item No. 2a
Hormann Residence
PA2013-086
Re: Hermann Residence Variance Application
417- 419 E. Balboa Boulevard
PA2013-086
Dear Ben:
founding principals
john 0. 10011119, tucldtect
james c. Wason, architect
principal
eh}vad L gulley, architect
I have found an error in our area summary that affects the % increase of the proposed
project. We had inadvertently subtracted the area of this building that we intend to demo
as part of the work. The correct summary is attached that lowers the % of the requested
addition to 104% of the existing.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very ry ours,
J ours,
Principal
cc: Greg & Sharon Hermann
architecture
2821 nmpon blvd.
phone (949) 673-26-13
historical rehabilitation
nmvpod beach
fax (949) 673.8547
planning
onliromin 92663
email: Lminc@nol.com
WN
11-72
* 120 SF TO BE DEMOLISHED FROM (E) SECOND FLOOR
OPEN i70I.UM E
LOCATION TOTAL S
FIRST FLOOR 239
SECOND FLOOR 187
TOTAL 426
OTAL REQUIRED OPEN VOLUME (SF) _
15% x (85'-, 24) = 306 SF
159
11-73
LOT DATA
DESCRIPTION
EXISTING PROPOSED S
DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED/
ALLOWED EXISTING
PROPOSED
LOT AREAS . FI'.
5 000
2,850
2,850
SECOND FLOOR
*778 1 947
1,605
THIRD FLOOR
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT:
502
SUB -TOTAL:
1,9051 1644
FLAI' ROOF
24-0"
+/- 18'-0"
NIA
SLOPED ROOF; M IN. 3:12
29'-0"
NIA
29'-0"
1
TOTAL:
1,905 1,989
SETBACKS:
BUILDABLEAREA S
=2sI(85'.x24') -306 SFj 3774 SF
FRONT
Y-0"
1'-5"
F-5"
SIDE YARD (WEST)
3'-0"
Y-0"
T-0"(N)ADDITION
SIDE YARD EAST
T -On
0'-0"
T-0° ADDTITON
REAR ALLEY
5'-0"
54'-0"
5'-0"
353 795
1,148
* 120 SF TO BE DEMOLISHED FROM (E) SECOND FLOOR
OPEN i70I.UM E
LOCATION TOTAL S
FIRST FLOOR 239
SECOND FLOOR 187
TOTAL 426
OTAL REQUIRED OPEN VOLUME (SF) _
15% x (85'-, 24) = 306 SF
159
11-73
PROJECT DATA
DESCRIPTION
EXISTING PROPOSED S
TOTAL
LIVING AREA:
FIRSTFLOOR
1.1271 195
1,322
SECOND FLOOR
*778 1 947
1,605
THIRD FLOOR
0 l 502
502
SUB -TOTAL:
1,9051 1644
3,429
1
GARAGE:
0 1 345
345
1
TOTAL:
1,905 1,989
3774
BUILDABLEAREA S
=2sI(85'.x24') -306 SFj 3774 SF
DECKS:
FIRST FLOOR
0 0
0
SECOND FLOOR
353 187
540
THIRD FLOOR
0 608
608
TOTAL:
353 795
1,148
* 120 SF TO BE DEMOLISHED FROM (E) SECOND FLOOR
OPEN i70I.UM E
LOCATION TOTAL S
FIRST FLOOR 239
SECOND FLOOR 187
TOTAL 426
OTAL REQUIRED OPEN VOLUME (SF) _
15% x (85'-, 24) = 306 SF
159
11-73
w•
11-74
Attachment No. CC 6
Minutes from August 22, 2013, Planning
Commission Meeting
R0,5
11-75
02
11-76
VIII.
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chair Hillgren
MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2013
Approve and file
comments submitted
Interested parties were invited to address
Chair Hillgren closed public comments for this
8/22/2013
minutes.
on this item, there was no response and
Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and s nded by Com loner Brown and cared (6 — 1) to approve the
minutes of August 8, 2013, as correc
AYES: ri, Brown, Hillgren, Kromer, Myers, and Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS/ Lawler
ABSENT: None
Hillgren addressed the process for hearing Public Hearing items.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 HORMANN VARIANCE (PA2013-086)
Site Location: 417 and 419 E. Balboa Boulevard
Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba presented details of the staff report including a description of the proposed
project, existing conditions, Zoning Code requirements, particulars of the variance, the project site, location,
lot size, surrounding properties, access, and background. He addressed setbacks, conformance with the
Zoning Code, details of the addition, required findings for Issuing a variance, and recommendations.
Interested parties were invited to address the Planning Commission on this item.
John Loomis, architect for the applicant, presented a brief history of the site and noted changes in Zoning
over time. He addressed the fifty (50%) percent rule and other options considered including altering the
existing building to conform to the setback requirements. He stated that per the advice of contractors the
cheapest way to bring the property into conformance would be to demolish the existing building and
reconstruct it. He reported that the option would not be financially feasible; therefore, the only option was to
request a variance. He stated that there is no other way of making the property compliant unless it is
completely demolished and rebuilt. Therefore, the variance is not a special privilege, but a necessity. He
reported that the Fire Department is comfortable with the proposal and addressed compatibility with the
neighborhood and benefits to the community. He noted the allowance of variance to deal with anomalies.
Vice Chair Tucker noted that the Planning Commission does not make policies but operates under existing
policies. He addressed circumstances applicable to properties (not buildings) in consideration of variances
and noted It does not take into account unusual circumstances as laid out by Mr. Loomis. He noted that Mr.
Loomis can always appeal the issue to Council.
Mr. Loomis referenced "unique circumstances" and felt that it would apply to the building on the property
noting that it is infeasible to remove the building.
Greg Hormann, property owner, reported that the non-conformance was not reported when he purchased the
property. He commented on his intent to expand the property but explained that it is financially unfeasible to
demolish the property. He indicated a belief that had the plans been submitted earlier, City staff would have
supported the expansion, but that the application was postponed due to the architect's illness. He requested
Page 2 of 12
63
11-77
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/22/2013
that the Planning Commission take into consideration those circumstances and the sequence of events in
granting the variance request.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Hillgren, Mr. Hormann reported that Mr. Loomis had several meetings with
the Planning Division before his illness and they were on board with the plan, but that subsequently, the
Senior Planner assigned to the project retired.
Vice Chair Tucker referenced a letter indicating that the Senior Planner was on board with the plan. He
noted that recommendations from staff are not always agreed to by the Planning Commission and that the
Commission has the authority to approve or not approve recommendations. He doubted that the Planning
Commission's action would be different if staff were recommending approval.
W.R. Dildine commented on a nearby property that is under similar conditions and expressed support of the
variance, noting that the owners have made substantial improvements to the property. He felt that the
project will help relieve existing parking problems in the area.
George Hajjar, adjacent neighbor, commented positively on the condition of properties in the area and felt
that the subject property is "out of sync" with the area. He expressed concerns with access to his garage
because of parked cars and felt that if the variance is allowed, he will continue to have difficulties accessing
his property. He reported an existing gas meter that sticks out of the ground and felt it poses a danger and
that it should be put underground. He expressed concerns with the project blocking his views and stated his
support for denying the variance.
Jerry Bradfield, adjacent neighbor, spoke in support of the proposed variance and noted the uniqueness of
the area. He addressed weekly rentals and related problems in the area and stressed that the applicant will
be living in the residence. He commented positively on the applicant's efforts to integrate the old with the
new. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the variance.
Dillon Colucci, adjacent neighbor, voiced support for the proposed variance and opined that if a property
already has a structure on it, the structure would be included in the topography of the lot. He felt that the
existing structure on the subject property meets the definition under "unique circumstances" and commented
positively on the proposed project.
Ryan Snap, adjacent neighbor, addressed improved parking by the proposed project and addressed its
compatibility with the surrounding area. He spoke in support of the proposed variance.
Jim Mosher felt that if the Planning Commission votes for the resolution for approval, it would need to be
rewritten stating facts in support of the findings. If the Commission were to vote for the draft resolution of
denial, he pointed out grammatical errors within the resolution.
There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission on this item, Chair Hillgren closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Myers reported visiting the property, having carefully examined the report, and as a result
slated his support of the findings and agreed with the unique circumstances applicable to the subject
property, which would include the existing structure. He stated that he would vote against the resolution to
deny the variance.
Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Myers in terms of findings in support of the variance. He
encouraged developing ideas to help the applicant proceed with the project. He addressed comments
received in support of the project and felt that consideration should be given to the fact that the owner will
reside on the property. In terms of the proposed square footage, he felt that there are comparable properties
surrounding the subject site.
In response to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren, Assistant Planner Zdeba addressed the intent of setbacks and
addressed differences between side and front setbacks and the requirements for each.
Ms. Wisneski addressed allowances relative to commercial versus residential zones.
Page 3 of 12
MM
11-78
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/22/2013
Commissioner Kramer commented on a prior case under similar circumstances at 407 East Balboa
Boulevard.
Mr. Zdeba noted that the property was considered prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Code and
commented on the specific circumstances considered at the time. He further clarified that the modification
permit granted under the old Zoning Code to 407 East Balboa Boulevard allowed an addition consistent with
what is allowed by right in the new Zoning Code.
Commissioner Kramer commented on other physical features of the property.
Commissioner Ameri expressed sympathy for the applicant but felt that there are ways to reach the
applicant's intent without having to demolish the property. He addressed the Planning Commission's limit to
authority in terms of the ability change the Code. He expressed concerns with setting a precedent.
Commissioner Myers commented on the need to revise the resolution and continue the matter.
Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that if the intent of the Commission is to consider a
resolution for approval, it could be approved at this time if sufficient information is provided to have staff
develop a resolution for approval.
The maker of the motion would need to articulate the findings.
Commissioner Kramer indicated he cannot support the findings and will vote against the motion.
Chair Hillgren stated that he encouraged the redevelopment of the property but cannot support the findings.
He noted that the code allows for reasonable expansion of the property but expressed concems that the
proposal to eliminate the front setback is inconsistent with the primary goal of the zoning code. He indicated
support for the applicant's efforts to improve the property but stressed the need to comply with the goals of
the code.
Motion made by Commissioner Myers and seconded by Commissioner Brown and failed (2 — 5), to deny
adoption of Resolution No. 1918 denying Variance No. VA2013-002 and support issuance of the variance
based on the fact that unique circumstances and conditions exist on the property and that strict compliance
with the Zoning Code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights
of the applicant and will not constitute special privilege or be inconsistent with zoning and will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood. Facts in support would be that the property has been in existence for
seventy-three (73) years. Special circumstances would include that the property was built prior to significant
zoning changes, is currently well-maintained and that compliance with the Zoning Code would constitute an
economic hardship for the homeowners.
AYES:
Brown and Myers
NOES:
Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, and Tucker
ABSTENTIONS:
None
ABSENT:
None
Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried (5 — 2), to adopt
Resolution No. 1918 denying Variance No. VA2013-002.
AYES:
Ameri, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, and Tucker
NOES:
Brown and Myers
ABSTENTIONS:
None
ABSENT:
None
Page 4 of 12
015
11-79
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., a public
hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport
Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application:
Hormann Variance Appeal — An appeal of the Planning Commission's August 22, 2013,
decision to deny Variance No. VA2013-002. The applicant's request is to maintain/remodel
an existing 1,785 -square -foot duplex and to add 1,989 square feet on the rear of the property
including a two -car garage and attached two -car carport. The existing duplex is
nonconforming because it encroaches into the required 3 -foot side setbacks and 5 -foot front
setback. The proposed new construction would comply with the Zoning Code's development
standards with the exception that additions to nonconforming structures are limited to 50
percent of the existing floor area. A variance is required.for the proposed project as it would
result in a 104 -percent addition.
The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures).
All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you
challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the
public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal
Code Chapter 20.64. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if
such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to
the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's
Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport
Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may
contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action
on this application.
For questions regarding details of the project please contact Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant
Planner, at (949) 644-3253 or bzdeba(a)newportbeachca.gov.
Project File No.: PA2013-086
Zone: Two -Unit Residential (R-2)
Location: 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard
Activity No.: VA2013-002
General Plan: Two -Unit Residential (RT)
Applicant: Greg and Sharon Hormann
Leilani .Brown, MMC, City Clerk
G ,^ City of Newport Beach
iRMO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
On —rA ^` ,ko,rY 7th 2014, 1 posted 2 Site Notices of the Notice of
Public Hearing regarding:
Hormann Variance Appeal (PA2013-086)
Locations: 417 and 419 East Balboa Boulevard
Date of City Council Public Hearing: January 28, 2014
l
11-81
A01/1V-VJ-UV5-& I wD•n-wa yavyv. v0 ae�gwgj ---ap suds 1 ®U9L5®A83AV luegeo al zest mn
woa•Ajanex+ MM I ap u4u ajnLIN4 el @ zallday
I ® Jalad a seine; sauanbq�
Q
T
i e09L5 0AH3Ad Q
i
Mr. & Mrs. Greg Hormann
419 E. Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92661
Variance Labels
Labels prepared 4/23/13
PA2013-086 for VA2013-002
417 & 419 E Balboa Blvd Oft
Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
CD 1 81 Labels
faja6p3dn-d0dasodz9 jadedpaa;
o3 Bull buole puss ® V
i
Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
John Loomis
2821 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Central Newport Beach
Community Association
P.O. Box 884
Newport Beach, CA 92661
Balboa Village BID
400 Main Street
Newport Beach, CA 92661
Variance Labels
Labels prepared 4/23/13
PA2013-086 for VA2013-002
417 & 419 E Balboa Blvd
Thirtieth Street Architects Inc. ®09LSa;eldwal�4anyasry
CD 1 abe s'
C:::
Y
slagel ®lead Asea
11-8
048 080 02
048 082 04
048 082 13
City Of Newport
Arthur Spector
Lucinda Simpson Boswell
3300 Ne Blvd
801 S Rampart Blvd #200
550 N Osborn Ave
Ne rt Beach Ca 92663
Las Vegas Nv 89145
West Covina Ca 91790
048 082 14
048 082 15
048 082 16
Taffee Trust
We Smiley
2361 Newport LLC
Po Box 459
Po Box 790
801 S Rampart Blvd #200
Yorba Linda Ca 92885
Newport Beach Ca 92661
Las Vegas Nv 89145
048 082 17
048 092 08
048 092 11
Michael Oshay
315 E Bay
William Dildine
912 Brigham Young Dr
9227 Fox Fire Dr
Po Box 4118
Claremont Ca 91711
Highlands Ranch Co 80129
Newport Beach Ca 92661
048 092 27
048 092 28
048 111 12
Jonardi & Sari Handoko
Eddie Fischer
Eric Van De Zilver
3125 Montana Ln
2020 E Orangethorpe Ave
13951 Carroll Way #e
Claremont Ca 91711
Fullerton Ca 92831
Tustin Ca 92780
048 111 13
048 111 14
048 11126
Gladys Bennett
Wayne & Marianne Zippi
Thomas Oloughlin
5431 Magnolia Ave
420 E Bay Ave
428 E Bay Ave
Riverside Ca 92506
Newport Beach Ca 92661
Newport Beach Ca 92661
048 111 27
048 111 28
048 113 01
Vandezilver Trust
Franklin Coffman
Roger Killingsworth
426 E Bay Ave
430 E Bay Ave
4721 Casa Oro Dr
Newport Beach Ca 92661
Newport Beach Ca 92661
Yorba Linda Ca 92886
048 113 02
048 11303
048 11304
Antoinette Rando
William Boggess
Loyal Hengstler
5309 Via Corona St
3251 Ocean Front Walk
419 E Bay Ave
Los Angeles Ca 90022
San Diego Ca 92109
Newport Beach Ca 92661
048 114 01
048 114 02
048 11403
Deborah Irish
Sandi Smith
Gary Rorden
240 Nice Ln #210
311 Kensington Rd
344 Colleen PI
Newport Beach Ca 92663
East Lansing Mi 48823
Costa Mesa Ca 92627
048 11404
048 114 05
048 114 06
Beverly Ann Depauw
Steven & Michele Stranak
Timothy Morgon
13807 Magnolia Blvd
419 Harding St
26572 Saddleback Dr
Sherman Oaks Ca 91423
Newport Beach Ca 92661
Mission Viejo Ca 92691
048 114 09
048 114 10
048 114 11
Artunian Trust
Fahey Trust
Carlito Diaz
53 Shady Ln
1034 Pescador Dr
24421 Saint James Dr
Irvine Ca 92603
Newport Beach Ca 92660
Moreno Valley Ca 92553
11-83
048 114 12 048 114 15 048 115 01
S & B Brooks LP J Roger Gorski Tjac LLC
2657 Windmill Pkwy#118 418 E Balboa Blvd 949 University Ave
Henderson Nv 89074 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Burbank Ca 91504
048 115 02 048 115 04 048 115 07
Keikhosrow Kavoussi Kay Swoffer Patton 500 East Balboa LLC
4303 James Casey St #a 6254 Parima St 1203 N Bay Front
Austin Tx 78745 Long Beach Ca 90803 Newport Beach Ca 92662
048 115 09 048 115 11 048 115 12
Lyle Faith Harpreet Singh Holdings Haleiwa
134 W Lime Ave 510 E Balboa Blvd 1008 E Balboa Blvd
Monrovia Ca 91016 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661
048 115 13 048 115 14 048 115 15
Saunders Michael Sand 505-507 Bay LLC
4040 Macarthur Blvd #300 42820 Viola Ct 4601 Coldwater Canyon Ave #201
Newport Beach Ca 92660 Leesburg Va 20176 Studio City Ca 91604
04811516 048 121 01 048 121 02
505-507 LC Esmaiel Doostmard Gray Trust
460 oldwater Canyon Ave #201 2118 Port Durness PI 407 E Balboa Blvd
udio City Ca 91604 Newport Beach Ca 92660 Newport Beach Ca 92661
048 121 03 048 121 04 048 121 05
Brian Phan Spencer Jackson Henry Joe Schorr
13203 W Palo Verde Dr 411 E Balboa Blvd 19106 Marlia Ct
Litchfield Park Az 85340 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Tarzana Ca 91356
048 121 06 048 121 07 048 121 09
Anne Harriman Casa Maui Inc Ronald Richard Soto
Po Box 3605 2920 E Ricker Way 25435 Gallup Cir
Newport Beach Ca 92659 Anaheim Ca 92806 Laguna Hills Ca 92653
048 121 10 048 121 11 048 121 12
Richard Wehrt Hajar Trust Barbara Luken
1572 La Loma Dr 414 E Oceanfront 4112 Enchanted Cir
Santa Ana Ca 92705 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Roseville Ca 95747
048 121 13 048 121 15 048 121 17
Robert Lowell Martin Jr. Richard Dwyer Evelyn Foster
410 E Oceanfront 3320 Wonder View Dr 404 E Oceanfront
Newport Beach Ca 92661 Los Angeles Ca 90068 Newport Beach Ca 92661
048 121 18 048 121 19 048 121 20
Mark Lucas James Gucciardo Allen Wah
812 N Kalaheo Ave Po Box 544 1718 Bronzewood Ct
Kailua Hi 96734 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Thousand Oaks Ca 91320
ME
048 121 21 048 122 01 048 122 02
Jane Xenos Vines Trust George Kliorikaitis
423 E Balboa Boulevard A B 303 Brookside Ave 2421 Margaret Dr
Newport Beach Ca 92661 Redlands Ca 92373 Newport Beach Ca 92663
048 122 03 048 122 04 048 122 05
George Kliorikait' Dino & Hope Clarizio Ronald Rose
2421 Mar t Dr 1412 Orlando Dr Po Box 77153
Ne rt Beach Ca 92663 Arcadia Ca 91006 Corona Ca 92877
048 122 06 048 122 07 04812208
James Frank Gucciardo Orka LLC Scap III LLC
Po Box 544 Po Box 118 Pc Box 810490
Newport Beach Ca 92661 San Juan Capistrano Ca 92693 Dallas Tx 75381
048 122 10 048 122 11 048 122 13
Suzan Tai Ward Brien Kosger-Hovaguimian
413 W Manchester Blvd 7130 Eaglefield Dr 502 E Oceanfront
Inglewood Ca 90301 Arlington Wa 98223 Newport Beach Ca 92661
048 122 14 048 122 15 048 122 16
Kimm Richardson Hobbs Trust Randy Esposito
413 S Glassell St 35 Balboa Cvs 4887 E La Palma Ave #708
Orange Ca 92866 Newport Beach Ca 92663 Anaheim Ca 92807
048 124 01 048 125 01 048 320 03
City Of Newport Beach City Of Newport—Beach City Of Newport Beach
3300 New Ivd 3300 N�e �rt��� Blvd 3300 port Blvd
Newport - each Ca 92663 Newp3rt Beach Ca 92663 Newport Beach Ca 92663
932 160 29 932 160 30 936 520 01
Tillerco LLC John Messerschmitt Gary Ziesche
185 Charter Oak Dr 25621 Rapid Falls Rd 2401 Cliff Dr
New Canaan Ct 06840 Laguna Beach Ca 92653 Newport Beach Ca 92663
936 520 02 936 520 03 936 520 04
Fund Lai Roger Stones Richard Ramella
713 W Duarte Rd #g-197 Po Box 9290 207 Sapphire Ave
Arcadia Ca 91007 Glendale Ca 91226 Newport Beach Ca 92662
936 520 05 936 520 06 936 520 07
Curt Mainard Robert Singh Ramin Alipour
425 E Bay Ave #5 418 Harding St #6 420 Harding St #7
Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661 Newport Beach Ca 92661
936 520 08 936 520 34 936 520 35
Jeffrey Arzouman Henry Nguyen Henryyen
427 E Bay Ave #8 52 Lazy Ln 52 Lfrzy Ln
Newport Beach Ca 92661 Kemah Tx 77565 Kemah Tx 77565
11-85
PROOF OF
PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I am a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County of Los Angeles; I
am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the notice
published. I am a principal clerk of the
NEWPORT BEACH/COSTA MESA
DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation on
September 29, 1961, case A6214, and
June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the
City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange,
and the State of California. Attached to
this Affidavit is a true and complete copy
as was printed and published on the
following date(s):
Saturday; January 18, 2014
I certify (or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on January 30, 2014
at Los Angeles, California
gnature
a
8J -6 itiv 4— UL N'k
J/ �'S1�•`iJJ
�.
Attachment No. CC 5
August 21, 2014, Planning Commission
Minutes
11-87
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 4 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CODE REVIEW (PA2014-083)
Site Location: City-wide
8121/14
Chair Tucker noted this Is a Study Session item meaning that no action will be taken by the Planning
Commission at this time.
Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba provided a presentation including background, a prior variance request related to
the matter, denial by the Planning Commission and subsequent appeal to Council. He reported that it was heard
by Council but the item was continued Indefinitely and directed staff to review the Municipal Code relative to
nonconforming structures, specifically smaller structures. He addressed the purpose of the nonconforming
chapter, specific criteria referenced and details of options discussed by staff. He outlined next steps and offered
to respond to questions.
In response to Commissioner Myer's inquiry regarding staffs preferred option, Mr. Zdeba stated that staff would
prefer Option Nos. 2 or 3 as stated in the report noting that Option No. 3 gives additional leeway by way of a
discretionary review in the case where there is a nonconforming portion of the property that might encroach on
one side making the structure nonconforming and allows for a case-by-case review of a property.
In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Zdeba addressed examples of nonconforming structures noting
there are a variety of different development standards within the residential zoning district section of the code.
He added that nonconforming structures and the scope of the discussion primarily Involve setback
encroachments and over height structures.
Commissioner Hillgren reiterated the intent and purpose of the nonconforming section of the code and stated an
interest in finding a way to help property owners who wish to bring nonconforming properties closer to
conformance. Mr. Zdeba indicated the options identified would help to encourage the addition of conforming
parking and also commented on the possibility of not supporting requests for increased offenses in terms of
nonconformance.
Chair Tucker touched on the background of the item and noted there could be an inequity wherein a property
owner with a larger structure built earlier on can add more square footage and develop the property further than
a property owner with a smaller structure built earlier on with similar nonconforming conditions. But he further
expressed concern with implementing a discretionary procedure to allow an addition up to 75 percent stating that
it could prevent the purpose of encouraging conformance.
Commissioner Hillgren discussed adding garages to address situations where parking is the nonconforming
issue and whether or not the new addition of parking would increase the total allowable addition with the 50
percent limitation.
Mr. Zdeba noted that staff considered stipulating a specific maximum square footage that could be excluded
from a garage depending on the number of parking spaces added. In response to Commissioner Koetting's
inquiry, he clarified Option No. 4 noting that it eliminates the discrimination between a smaller structure and
larger structure, but that staff had concerns with this option because there are areas of the City that are regulated
by lot coverage and others regulated by string -line policies.
Page 6 of 10
FEE.I9
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chair Tucker opened public comments.
8/21/14
W. R. Dildine reported that there are only two of these properties that are in trouble. One property, near him, has
to abate Its commercial use and another one that was demolished that complies with the current code. He
added there is possibly one in the 800 block. He suggested that something could be done to ease the pain of
the property owners in allowing them to redevelop their properties.
John Loomis, architect for the project that triggered this discussion, thanked staff and the Commission for
reviewing this matter. He stated that the existing regulation penalizes smaller property owners and commented
on Option No. 2 noting that in following same, the property would still be about 1,000 square feet below the
average property in the block. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider either Option Nos. 3 or 4.
He added that in his case, the nonconformity was created by a Zoning District change. He added that there are
other people that could benefit from this change as well.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
Chair Tucker stated he would like to see a more complete staff report that details the options in order to be
prepared to vote next time.
Ms. Wisneski stated that staff will bring the matter back as a Public Hearing item with documents presenting
options for the Planning Commission to consider.
Chair Tucker agreed and commented on the possibility of staff generating other options in the process of writing
the staff report.
Commissioner Hillgren stated he believes in merit -based approvals and encouraged finding ways in which
properties can become more conforming.
Ms. Wisneski reported that the matter will return to the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October
and will be properly noticed.
Commissioner Koetting requested examples of cases that have and have not worked.
Chair Tucker declared that the item will be heard by the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October.
Page 7 of 10
FEE -Rol
11-90
Attachment No. CC 6
August 21, 2014, Planning Commission Staff
Report
11-91
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
August 21, 2014 Meeting
Agenda Item 4
SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structures Code Review - (PA2014-083)
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
(949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
ABSTRACT
City Council initiated a Zoning Code amendment and directed staff to review the City's
Zoning Code as it relates to additions to nonconforming structures, specifically where
the total allowable additional floor area may be limited due to the size of a smaller
existing structure.
BACKGROUND
In August of 2013, the Planning Commission denied a variance request that proposed a
1,894 -square -foot addition to an existing 1,905 -square -foot duplex that is
nonconforming due to various setback encroachments and lack of required parking. The
request equated to an approximate addition of 99.5 percent of the existing floor area
where the Zoning Code limits additions to 50 percent of the existing floor area for
nonconforming structures.
The project was subsequently
appealed by the applicant on the
basis that the allowed addition is
hindered by the size of the existing
smaller structure on the property
when compared to other
nonconforming properties that may
already be developed with larger
structures and can add more square
footage by right. See Figure 1 (right)
for an example of the appellant's
argument. Additions may be further
limited when the required parking is
not provided and addition of that
parking is part of the 50 percent
allowable addition.
City Council continued the project
indefinitely and directed staff to
Existing
1.000 sq. n.
30.00
Smaller Structure
-------I I
—
Larger Structure
Figure 1, Allowable additions to existing smaller nonconforming
structures as compared to existing larger nonconforming
structures.
1 11-92
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
2 11-93
Nonconforming Structures Code Review
Planning Commission, August 21, 2014
Page 2
review the Zoning Code's nonconforming section (NBMC 20.38.040) and how it is
applied to smaller nonconforming structures to ensure equitable development
opportunities. Staff will provide alternative criteria, as well as examples of the
application of each criterion during the study session.
Environmental Review
This item is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3)).
Public Notice
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the Planning Commission considers the item).
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Beja i M. Veba
As ' tant Planner brona Wisnes i, ICP, Deputy Director
:\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2014\PA2014-083\PA2014-083 PC Study Session.dom 0410714
3 11-94
lire
Hormann Variance — add 99.5% of existing floor
area to nonconforming duplex
August 2013—Planning Commission denies
Appealed to City Council
January 2014 — City Council continues item and
directs staff to review N B M C 20.38.040
08/21/2014
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-96
0
,&■ akVA W.
NBMC Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming
Structures)
Criteria for continuation, maintenance and
expansion of nonconforming structures
Encourage increased conformance for
nonconforming structures
Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the existing
structure within any ten (io) year period
08/21/2014
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-97
3
•
08/21/2014
Ah
m
• Smaller Structure (E)
• ■ m • ■
• LargerStructure(E)
T
� G
Orel FrermlEsm
■ 5o% addition of existing gross floor area
(existing Zoning Code provision)
08/21/2014
I i,000 sq. ft.
existing
soo sq. ft.
addition
400 sq. I
ft.
garage
Community Development Department- Planning Division
So% addition of existing gross floor area
L Exclude addition of a conforming garage
08/21/2014
I i,000 sq. ft. .500 sq. ft. 400 sq. I
existing addition I ft.
garage '
I
Community Development Department- Planning Division
0rel ■lel■i:
■ 5o% addition of existing gross floor area
■ Exclude addition of a conforming garage
■ Allow over 5o% addition up to 75% of existing
gross floor area with discretionary approval
08/21/2014
. I I,000 sq. ft 750 sq. ft. o sq.
existing addition Ift. I
(discretionary) rage
I
Community Development Department- Planning Division
Orel FrorelEam
5o% addition of existing gross floor area or 75%
of the allowable floor area limitation, whichever
is greater
08/21/2014
I total equal to 75% I
of floor area limit
(including garage)
I
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-102
8
Ah
ZI•
Planning Commission can direct staff to:
(1) Return for public hearing to revise criteria with
one of the options identified; or
A
(2) Return for study session or public hearing to
discuss other options; or
(3) Return for public hearing to maintain the existing
criteria.
08/21/2014
Community Development Department- Planning Division
For more information contact:
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
949-644-3253
bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportt)eachca.gov
nce.
Option •
■ Request: 1,894 sq. ft. addition (99.5% of existing)
■ Allowance: 5o%ofexisting (including new garage)
■ 70% of max floor area limit
i
08/21/2014
Option #1— Existing Criteria
..
1,905 sq. ft. 552.5 sq. ft. o sq. ft. I
existing addition jarage
Community Development Department- Planning Division
Option •
■ Request: 1,894 sq. ft. addition (99.5% of existing)
■ Allowance: 50% of existing excluding new garage
(71% of existing)
k 80% of max floor area limit
08/21/2014
Option #z — Exclude Garage
i
400 sq. ft. I
garage
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-106
12
•
-�cq[/FOPN�P
Sintia.
Request:1,894 sq. ft. addition (99.5% of existing)
■ #3 Allowance: 75% of existing (discretionary
approval) excluding new garage (96% of existing)
92% of max floor area limit
08/21/2014
Option #3 — Exclude Garage and 75% Discretionary
Community Development Department -Panning Division
11-107
13
11
0
•law:
Request:1,894 sq. ft. addition (99.5% of existing)
for
#4 Allowance: 75% of max floor area limit (61% of
existing)
75% of max floor area limitation
08/21/2014
Option #4-75% of Max Floor Area Limit
I 1,905 sq.1
existing
1,155 sq. ft.
addition
(including garage)
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-108
14
Attachment No. CC 7
October 23, 2014, Planning Commission
Minutes
11-109
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
Site Location: Citywide
10/23/14
Recommended Action: Direct staff to return with a resolution amending the Zoning Code to include one (1)
of the options detailed in the staff report.
Deputy Director of Community Development Brenda Wisneski reported that the Planning Commission conducted a
study session In August, where an overview of the issue was presented along with potential options. She addressed
the Planning Commission's direction at that time, the actions that can be taken at this time and deferred to staff for a
report.
Assistant Planner Benjamin Zdeba provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing background, prior cases considered,
an overview of the intent and purpose of the nonconforming structures Zoning Code section to encourage the
conformance of nonconforming structures over time, City Council concerns, details of available and recommended
options, and various scenarios applying the recommended options.
In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry regarding the allowable percentage increase for a conforming property,
Assistant Planner Zdeba reported that if a property is completely conforming, owners can add square footage to the
maximum amount stipulated by floor area limitations. He added that different zoning districts have different regulations.
Total maximum allowable floor area includes the garage square footage. Mr. Zdeba clarified that the issue at hand was
more or less dealing with nonconforming setbacks rather than nonconforming parking.
Commissioner Hillgren noted that the City is trying to create an incentive for people to be more in conformance with
regard to parking and asked about incentives for people to reduce their setbacks or heights. Assistant Planner Zdeba
stated that in this case, the addition of a conforming garage is seen as an added benefit regarding the nonconforming
issue, and exclusion of the garage helps to eliminate the discrimination against smaller structures on properties that do
not currently provide required parking.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of achieving 100 percent of the maximum floor area.
Commissioner Lawler commented on Option No. 4 and asked about the discretionary review. Assistant Planner Zdeba
reported that the matter would go to the Zoning Administrator. A mechanism would be provided to review allowance for
additional square footage on a case-by-case basis. He added that Option No. 3 allows for the same provision, but
eliminates the discretionary review component.
Secretary Myers suggested that If the goal is to create more parking, it could be stated in Option No. 4 that attempting to
increase the amount of available parking on-site is a factor in the determination of allowing additional square footage
between 50 percent and 75 percent.
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the purpose of the zoning amendment is not to
incentivize additional parking, but to address small structures and the fact that they may be penalized for being small
structures dealing with nonconformities. She added that parking is a by-product of the zoning amendment.
Page 2 of 5
FEINE ]
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
10/23/14
In response to Secretary Myers' question, it was noted that if parking is nonconforming, another code section provides a
10 percent addition limitation. In order to get more than a 10 percent addition, a property owner would have to provide
the Code -required parking.
Chair Tucker commented on the purpose of the nonconforming structure regulations was to encourage conformity. He
questioned whether or not the goal of the Zoning Code should be to allow an equitable expansion of nonconforming
structures so that small structures are treated like big structures if the overall goal is to achieve conformity. He added
that a discretionary process would need to be accompanied by definitive findings to help ensure that equitable expansion
of nonconformity would make sense. He expressed concerns regarding the findings and coming up with an appropriate
set of findings that would be a function of the size, condition and architecture of the structure. He opined that the level of
review for nonconforming structures should be the Planning Commission. He added that there should be a ceiling on the
percentage of allowable floor area that could be permitted with a discretionary review.
Chair Tucker invited public comments on this item.
John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, reported that the reason his clients appealed the case to the City Council was
because the ordinance is unfair and grants more to the "haves" than to the "have nots". He stated that all of the
options have the incentives for getting from the 10 percent to the 50 percent by improving parking to a fully -
conforming state. He added that his clients feel that Option No. 4 is the fairest of all the options presented and that
the strict percentage of a given area of a building favors those with more area and disfavors those with less. He also
added that there are factors involved that are not considered as a straight percentage of the existing area and
reiterated his clients' preference for Option No. 4.
In response to Chair Tucker's question, Mr. Loomis reported that it is possible that providing a cap on the allowable
floor area could work with a discretionary action. He added that if Option No. 4 passes, his clients would have a
reduction of approximately 300 square feet, resulting in nearly 1.75 times the buildable area. He added that the
options presented are creative and are going in the right direction. He noted the importance of having a discretionary
action involved to be able to deal with particulars of a case.
Chair Tucker commented on being fair versus being in conformity.
Amber Hormann stated her preference for Option No. 4 as it allows for the most livable space.
Gary Mobley, Attorney representing the Hormann's, spoke in support of Option No. 4, noting that it allows flexibility of
Planning and the Commission to address the unique situations of each property. He added that there will always be
flexibility regardless of whether Option No. 4 is selected or not in terms of a variance application. He added that
encouraging conformity needs to be balanced against the property rights of owners and the equity of each situation
as it is applied to each property.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
Chair Tucker noted that the important thing is to figure out what will make sense and make a recommendation that
must be complied with.
Commissioner Hillgren commented on the 50 percent limitation and added that with the current code there is an
intent to penalize for remaining nonconforming. He stated that using the existing building size may not be the right
starting point. Rather, the limitation should be based on what can be built on the property not the size of the home
today. He suggested that adding the square footage of a new garage to the denominator might encourage people,
where there is not a garage, to build one. The result would be a square footage bonus for having built a more
conforming project.
Discussion followed regarding setting a 75 percent of allowable floor area limitation as the maximum.
Secretary Myers commented on allowing property owners to maximize the value of their property, including the
garage, and setting a limit of 2.0, with the goal of conformity. He agreed that these matters should go before the
Planning Commission.
Page 3 of 5
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
10/23/14
Commissioner Lawler commented on Commissioners Hillgren and Myers' suggestion and indicated he would like to
see examples. Additionally, he wondered if it would be prudent to try to quantify what the discretion means relative
to Option No. 4 and what findings would be necessary in order to achieve that discretion.
Discussion followed regarding the importance of understanding what the findings would have to be and of input from
staff.
Commissioner Brown suggested findings regarding architecture, building structure and materials and how the
property became non -conforming.
Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez reported that staff does not see many nonconforming cases where the 50 percent
standard currently in effect is not sufficient to achieve what the property owner/developer is trying to achieve. He added
that the Hormann case is unusual, noting that many of the older homes that are nonconforming are usually tom down
and rebuilt. He agreed with the need for findings if the Planning Commission approves Option No. 4 and suggested an
additional finding regarding the degree of the nonconformity.
Chair Tucker added that the size of the structure should also be considered in the findings.
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski clarified that the Planning Commission is considering Option No. 4
and addressed inclusion of the garage in calculating the 50 percent. She reported that the modification permit could be
utilized and be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. She added that modification permit findings are
broad and can be augmented in accordance with the comments made above.
Chair Tucker agreed and reiterated that he would like to see a 75 percent limitation and that the goal is to encourage
conformity.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of eliminating the discretion and using 75 percent as the number and
the possibility of including a square footage bonus using the addition of a conforming garage.
Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (5 — 0) to continue the matter until the
Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2014.
AYES:
Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Myers and Tucker
NOES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
None
ABSENT:
Koetting and Kramer
Page 4 of 5
FENERA
Attachment No. CC 8
October 23, 2014, Planning Commission
Staff Report
11-113
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
October 23, 2014 Meeting
Agenda Item 2
SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment - (PA2014-083)
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
(949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
ABSTRACT
City Council directed staff to review Zoning Code Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming
Structures) as it relates to additions to nonconforming structures, specifically where the
total allowable additional floor area may be limited due to the size of a smaller existing
structure. Upon review and discussion, staff has identified two primary options for
consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Direct staff to return with a resolution amending the Zoning Code to include one of the
options detailed below.
BACKGROUND
In August 2013, the Planning Commission denied a variance request to retain an existing
nonconforming structure while adding nearly 100 percent of the existing square footage
whereby the Zoning Code limits such additions to 50 percent.
The project was subsequently appealed by the applicant on the basis that the allowed
addition is hindered by the size of the existing smaller structure on the property when
compared to other nonconforming properties that may already be developed with larger
structures and can add more square footage by right. City Council continued the project
indefinitely and directed staff to review the Zoning Code's nonconforming regulations and
how they apply to smaller nonconforming structures to ensure equitable development
opportunities.
On August 21, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the item in a study session and
discussed potential changes to the Zoning Code. Although it was agreed there may be
inequities amongst nonconforming developments, the Planning Commission expressed
concern that allowing too much flexibility may compromise the purpose of encouraging
conformance with the development standards. The Planning Commission directed staff to
return with a more detailed report including examples of the recommended options.
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, October 23, 2014
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The purpose of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) is to encourage
nonconforming structures to become more conforming over time through establishing
procedures and criteria for continuation, maintenance, and expansion. This is currently
achieved by limiting additions to nonconforming structures to 50 percent of the existing
gross floor area and further limiting additions to 10 percent when the required parking is
not provided on-site.
In cases where a structure is nonconforming only due to built circumstances (e.g. setback
encroachments, height, etc.) and the required parking is provided, the 50 -percent limitation
will generally allow the property owner to develop the property near or to its maximum floor
area limitation. However, in cases where the structure is nonconforming and required
parking (garage) is not provided, the addition of required parking can account for a
substantial portion of the 50 -percent allowance, especially when the existing structure is
small in relation to the lot size.
In reviewing the aforementioned criteria, staff analyzed multiple alternatives which could
provide additional flexibility and eliminate constraints placed on smaller nonconforming
structures. Those options are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1- Options for Additions to Nonconforming Structures
Options
Description
Allow a 50 -percent addition of the existing gross floor area by right and up to a 75-
1
percent addition of the existing gross floor area subject to a discretionary review.
Allow a 50-perecent addition of the existing gross floor area or 75 percent of the
2
allowable floor area limitation, whichever is greater.
Allow a 50 -percent addition of the existing gross floor area to a nonconforming
structure, but exclude the additional floor area associated with providing a conforming
3
garage and further stipulate the maximum square footage excluded for each garage
size (i.e., 200 sq. ft. — 1 -car garage, 400 sq. ft. — 2 -car garage, 600 sq. ft. — 3 -car
garage, etc.).
Allow a 50 -percent addition of the existing gross floor area to a nonconforming
structure, but exclude the additional floor area associated with providing a conforming
garage and further stipulate the maximum square footage excluded for each garage
4
size (i.e., 200 sq. ft. — 1 -car garage, 400 sq. ft. — 2 -car garage, 600 sq. ft. — 3 -car
garage, etc.). Allow an addition over 50 percent of the existing gross floor area up to a
maximum of 75 percent, subject to a discretionary review.
Although Option Nos. 1 and 2 can provide additional square footage, neither option
addresses whether or not conforming parking is provided on the property. Furthermore,
Option No. 2 would become difficult to apply when a property does not have a maximum
2 11-115
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, October 23, 2014
Page 3
floor area limitation; for instance in the R-1-6,000 Zoning District where development is
governed by a lot coverage maximum or in the Bluff Development Overlay and canyons
where string line policies are implemented.
Contrary to Option Nos. 1 and 2, Option Nos. 3 and 4 both encourage and account for the
addition of conforming parking where none currently exists and help to eliminate the
constraints placed on smaller nonconforming structures when conforming parking is added
as part of the redevelopment. Option No. 4, however, provides additional discretion in
allowing an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing structure which can be applied on a
case-by-case basis with approval of a discretionary permit.
Staff believes Option No. 4 presents the most viable and effective option in reducing the
constraints on smaller nonconforming structures and would recommend either pursuing
this alternative or leaving the section as it is today. See Attachment No. PC 1 for more
detailed examples of how the current Zoning Code criteria apply versus the proposed
Option No. 4.
Alternatives
1) The Planning Commission may modify or create a new option for amendment; or
2) The Planning Commission may recommend upholding the current Zoning Code
language and provide reasoning for leaving it unchanged.
Environmental Review
This item is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3)).
Public Notice
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the
meeting at which the Planning Commission considers the item).
Prepared by:
w�ltlklll��
Beja i M. eba
As ' tant Planner
Submitted by:
*rn sneslfi, r
ICP, Deputy Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Examples
PC 2 August 21, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes
3 11-116
4 11-117
Attachment No. PC 1
Examples
0 11-119
PA2014-083, Attachment No. PC 1
Options
Option 1: Allow 50% addition of the existing gross floor area (current standard).
Option 4: Allow 50% addition of the existing gross floor area by right (current standard),
but exclude the addition of a conforming garage. Further stipulate the square footage
excluded for each garage size (i.e., 200 sq. ft. - 1 -car garage, 400 sq. ft. - 2 -car garage,
600 sq. ft. - 3 -car garage, etc.). Allow over 50% addition of the existing gross floor area,
up to a maximum of 75%, subject to discretionary review.
Examples
The following examples alt assume a conforming garage is being added as part of the project. If no
parking is being provided, the addition is limited to 10% and above options do not apply.
Scenario
Details
Option 1
Option 4
Option
Variance Duplex
1,785 sq. ft. duplex,
2,277 sq. ft. duplex
2,677 sq. ft. duplex,
3,124 sq. ft. duplex,
No Parking
0 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
(Balboa Peninsula)
30' x 90' lot
(2,677 sq. ft. total)
(3,077 sq. ft. total)
(3,524 sq. ft, total)
Setbacks 5'f, 3's, 5'r
(69% of allowable)
(80% of allowable)
(91% of allowable)
Smaller Duplex,
1,800 sq. ft. duplex,
2,300 sq. ft. duplex,
2,700 sq. ft. duplex,
2,948 sq. ft. duplex,
No Parking
0 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
(Corona del Mar)
30'x 118' lot
(2,700 sq. ft. total)
(3,100 sq. ft. total)
(3,348 sq. ft. total)
Setbacks 20'f, 3's, 5'r
(81% of allowable)
(93% of allowable)
(100% of allowable)
Smaller Duplex,
1,800 sq. ft. duplex,
2,900 sq. ft. duplex,
2,700 sq. ft. duplex,
2,948 sq. ft. duplex,
2 -Car Garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage,
400 sq. ft. garage,
400 sq. ft. garage
(Corona del Mar)
30' x 118' lot
(3,300 sq. ft. total)
(3,100 sq. ft. total)
(3,348 sq. ft. total)
Setbacks 201, 3's, 5'r
(99% of allowable)
(93% of allowable)
(100% of allowable)
Smaller SFR,
1,200 sq. ft. SFR,
1,700 sq. ft. SFR,
1,800 sq. ft. SFR,
2,100 sq. ft. SFR,
1 -Car Garage
200 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
(Corona del Mar)
30'x 118' lot
(2,100 sq. ft. total)
(2,200 sq. ft. total)
(2,500 sq. ft. total)
Setbacks 20'f, 3's, 5'r
(63% of allowable)
(66% of allowable)
(75% of allowable)
Larger Duplex,
2,500 sq. ft. duplex,
2,960 sq. ft. duplex,
2,960 sq. ft. duplex,
No Parking
0 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
N/A
(Balboa Peninsula)
30' x 85' lot
(3,360 sq. ft. total)
(3,360 sq. ft. total)
Setbacks 10'f, 3's, 5'r
(100% of allowable)
(100%of allowable)
Smaller SFR,
1,200 sq. ft. SFR,
1,400 sq. ft. SFR,
1,800 sq. ft. SFR,
2,100 sq. ft. SFR,
No Parking
0 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
(Balboa Peninsula)
30' x 85' lot
(1,800 sq. ft. total)
(2,200 sq. ft. total)
(2,500 sq. ft. total)
Setbacks 101, 3's, 5'r
(54% of allowable)
(65% of allowable)
(74% of allowable)
Smaller SFR,
1,200 sq. ft. SFR,
1,400 sq. ft. SFR,
1,800 sq. ft. SFR,
2,100 sq. ft. SFR,
No Parking
0 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
(Newport Heights)
50'x 117.5' lot
(1,800 sq. ft. total)
(2,200 sq. ft. total)
(2,500 sq. ft. total)
Setbacks 20'f, 4's, 5'r
(23% of allowable)
(28% of allowable)
(32% of allowable)
Larger SFR,
2,000 sq. ft. SFR,
3,200 sq. ft. SFR,
3,000 sq. ft. SFR,
3,500 sq. ft. SFR,
2 -Car Garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
400 sq. ft. garage
(Newport Heights)
50' x 117.5' lot
(3,600 sq. ft. total)
(3,400 sq. ft. total)
(3,900 sq. ft. total)
Setbacks 201, 4's, 5'r
(46% of allowable)
(44% of allowable)
(50% of allowable)
7 11-120
2 11-121
Attachment No. PC 2
August 21, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes
11-122
V�
P
10 11-123
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
ITEM NO.4 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CODE REVIEW (PA2014-083)
Site Location: City-wide
8/21/14
Chair Tucker noted this is a Study Session item meaning that no action will be taken by the Planning
Commission at this time.
Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba provided a presentation including background, a prior variance request related to
the matter, denial by the Planning Commission and subsequent appeal to Council. He reported that it was heard
by Council but the Item was continued indefinitely and directed staff to review the Municipal Code relative to
nonconforming structures, specifically smaller structures. He addressed the purpose of the nonconforming
chapter; specific criteria referenced and details of options discussed by staff. He outlined next steps and offered
to respond to questions.
In response to Commissioner Myer's inquiry regarding staffs preferred option, Mr. Zdeba stated that staff would
prefer Option Nos. 2 or 3 as stated in the report noting that Option No. 3 gives additional leeway by way of a
discretionary review in the case where there is a nonconforming portion of the property that might encroach on
one side making the structure nonconforming and allows for a case-by-case review of a property.
In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Zdeba addressed examples of nonconforming structures noting
there are a variety of different development standards within the residential zoning district section of the code.
He added that nonconforming structures and the scope of the discussion primarily Involve setback
encroachments and over height structures.
Commissioner Hillgren reiterated the intent and purpose of the nonconforming section of the code and stated an
interest in finding a way to help property owners who wish to bring nonconforming properties closer to
conformance. Mr. Zdeba indicated the options identified would help to encourage the addition of conforming
parking and also commented on the possibility of not supporting requests for increased offenses in terms of
nonconformance.
Chair Tucker touched on the background of the item and noted there could be an inequity wherein a property
owner with a larger structure built earlier on can add more square footage and develop the property further than
a property owner with a smaller structure built earlier on with similar nonconforming conditions. But he further
expressed concern with implementing a discretionary procedure to allow an addition up to 75 percent stating that
it could prevent the purpose of encouraging conformance.
Commissioner Hillgren discussed adding garages to address situations where parking is the nonconforming
issue and whether or not the new addition of parking would increase the total allowable addition with the 50
percent limitation.
Mr. Zdeba noted that staff considered stipulating a specific maximum square footage that could be excluded
from a garage depending on the number of parking spaces added. In response to Commissioner Koetting's
inquiry, he clarified Option No. 4 noting that It eliminates the discrimination between a smaller structure and
larger structure, but that staff had concerns with this option because there are areas of the City that are regulated
by lot coverage and others regulated by string -line policies.
Page 6 of 10
11 11-124
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chair Tucker opened public comments.
8121/14
W. R. Dildine reported that there are only two of these properties that are in trouble. One property, near him, has
to abate its commercial use and another one that was demolished that complies with the current code. He
added there is possibly one in the 800 block. He suggested that something could be done to ease the pain of
the property owners in allowing them to redevelop their properties.
John Loomis, architect for the project that triggered this discussion, thanked staff and the Commission for
reviewing this matter. He stated that the existing regulation penalizes smaller property owners and commented
on Option No. 2 noting that in following same, the property would still be about 1,000 square feet below the
average property in the block. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider either Option Nos. 3 or 4.
He added that in his case, the nonconformity was created by a Zoning District change. He added that there are
other people that could benefit from this change as well.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
Chair Tucker stated he would like to see a more complete staff report that details the options in order to be
prepared to vote next time.
Ms. Wisneski stated that staff will bring the matter back as a Public Hearing item with documents presenting
options for the Planning Commission to consider.
Chair Tucker agreed and commented on the possibility of staff generating other options in the process of writing
the staff report.
Commissioner Hillgren stated he believes in merit -based approvals and encouraged finding ways in which
properties can become more conforming.
Ms. Wisneski reported that the matter will return to the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October
and will be properly noticed.
Commissioner Koetting requested examples of cases that have and have not worked.
Chair Tucker declared that the item will be heard by the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October.
Page 7 of 10
12 11-125
•l I [KOl I I [•
T Com'
...................................... .......................%
,J
.................................................. .....................
r � ft.
3ackground M
Hormann Variance — add 99.5% of existing floor
area to nonconforming duplex
August 2013—Planning Commission denies
Appealed to City Council
January 2014 — City Council continues item and
directs staff to review N B M C 20.38.040
August 2014 — Planning Commission Study
Session
io/z3/zoiq
Community Development Department- Planning Division
DVP_ rvw
NBMC Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming
Structures)
Criteria for continuation, maintenance and
expansion of nonconforming structures
Encourage increased conformance for
nonconforming structures
Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the existing
structure within any ten (io) year period
io/z3/2014
Community Development Department- Planning Division
DVP_ rvw
Options
#s —Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(current standard).
• #2 —Allow So% addition of existing gross floor area
or 75% of allowable, whichever is greater.
#3 —Allow So% addition of existing gross floor area,
but exclude addition of a conforming garage.
#4 —Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(up to 75% w/ discretionary), but exclude addition of
a conforming garage.
io/z3/zoiq
Community Development Department- Planning Division
Dverview M
Options
#s —Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(current standard).
• #2 —Allow So% addition of existing gross floor area
or 75% of allowable, whichever is greater.
#3 —Allow So% addition of existing gross floor area,
but exclude addition of a conforming garage.
#4 —Allow 50% addition of existing gross floor area
(up to 75% w/ discretionary), but exclude addition of
a conforming garage.
io/z3/zoiq
Community Development Department- Planning Division
mum
1,785 sq
OVA
ft. duplex (=892.5 sq. ft. addition)
No required parking provided
400 sq. ft. garage addition
492.5 sq. ft. livable addition
CARPORT J
AREA
io/z3/zoiq
Community Development Department- Planning Division
•
anoP
nn #i
•
1,785 sq. ft. duplex (=892.5 sq. ft. 'livable" addition)
No requ
400 sq. f
892.5 sq
CARPORT
AREA
io/z3/zoiq
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-132
7
0
ano/j
nn #L
0
1,785 sq. ft. duplex (=1,339 sq. ft. 'livable" addition)
4
1,
io/z3/zoiq
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-133
8
■ Conduct a public hearing
■ Direct staff to return with a resolution
amending the Zoning Code to include one of
the options discussed
io/z3/zoi4
Community Development Department- Planning Division
11-134
9
Item No. 2b - Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
For more information contact:
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
949-644-3253
bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportt)eachca.gov
Planning Commission - October 23, 2014
Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Received
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
Ramirez, Brittany
From: Zdeba, Benjamin
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:47 AM
To: Ramirez, Brittany
Subject: FW: 417-419 E. Balboa
Hi Brittany,
Please see correspondence received below regarding tonight's Planning Commission meeting.
Thanks,
BENJAMIN ZDEBA
PH. (949( 644-3253
bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
—Original Message
From: thirtieth street architects,inc. [mailto:tsainc@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:30 AM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin
Cc: Gary Mobley, Greg & Sharon Hormann
Subject: 417-419 E. Balboa
Good morning Ben:
We have reviewed the proposed amendment alternatives with our client and concur with the staff
recommendation of Option 4. We feel that this is the fairest alternative because it allows some staff discretion
and flexibility in considering project specific circumstances such as existing building size, extent of
nonconformity and cause of nonconformity.
We thank you for your efforts
John Loomis
Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
949/673-2643
11-136
Attachment No. CC 9
December 4, 2014, Planning Commission
Minutes
11-137
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Vlll. CONTINUED BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 5 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CODE AMENDMENT (PA2014-083)
Citywide
12/4/14
Assistant Planner Benjamin Zdeba provided a brief PowerPoint presentation and addressed the purpose and
Page 6of8
i(i6RL'3
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
12/4/14
intent of the nonconforming provisions, prior direction by the Planning Commission, existing Zoning Code
standards and recommended changes.
Discussion followed regarding "density bonus" for adding a garage, potential for adding a percentage of the
allowable floor area limitation and a clarification regarding application of the Code equitably throughout the City.
Chair Tucker commented on the goal of bringing structures into compliance and suggested adding a finding
regarding limiting and expanding structures beyond 50 percent of the existing floor area.
Chair Tucker opened public comments.
Jim Mosher commented on possible contradictions within the document and suggested corrections.
Mr. Zdeba and Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez responded to Mr. Mosher's comments and specific suggested
corrections.
John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, expressed support of the recommended amendment.
Sharon Hermann thanked the Planning Commission for the time and energy it has spent in trying to correct this
issue. She expressed support of the recommended amendment and encouraged the Commission to approve it.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
Motion made by Commissioner Brown and seconded by Secretary Myers and carried (5 — 0) to adopt Resolution
No. 1965 recommending City Council adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 as set forth with the
revisions discussed.
AYES:
Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Myers and Tucker
NOES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
None
ABSENT:
Kramer and Lawler
Page 7 of 8
FESSR01
Attachment No. CC 10
December 4, 2014, Planning Commission Staff
Report
11-140
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
December 4, 2014 Meeting
Agenda Item 5
SUBJECT: Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
Citywide
Code Amendment No. CA2014-004
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
(949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
An amendment to Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures) of the Zoning Code
(Title 20) that would revise the allowed additions to nonconforming structures' by
excluding the addition of square footage for conforming parking and allowing greater
additions than currently allowed by the Zoning Code through the approval of a
modification permit.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council adoption of Code
Amendment No. CA2014-004 (Attachment No. PC 1).
INTRODUCTION
Background
In August 2013, the Planning Commission denied a variance request to retain an
existing nonconforming structure while adding nearly 100 percent of the existing square
footage whereby the Zoning Code limits such additions to 50 percent.
The project was subsequently appealed by the applicant on the basis that the allowed
addition is hindered by the size of the existing smaller structure on the property when
compared to other nonconforming properties that may already be developed with larger
structures and can add more square footage by right. City Council continued the project
indefinitely and directed staff to review the Zoning Code's nonconforming regulations
"'Nonconforming structure" means a structure that was lawfully erected, but that does not conform to the
property development regulations for the zoning district in which the structure is located by reason of
adoption or amendment of the Zoning Code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City.
2 11-142
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, December 4, 2014
Page 2
and how they apply to smaller nonconforming structures to ensure equitable
development opportunities.
On August 21, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the item in a study session
and discussed potential changes to the Zoning Code. Although there was agreement
that there may be inequities amongst nonconforming developments, the Planning
Commission expressed concern that allowing too much flexibility may compromise the
purpose of encouraging conformance with the development standards. The Planning
Commission directed staff to return with a more detailed report including examples of
the recommended options.
On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing wherein it
reviewed the identified options in more detail and provided direction to staff to evaluate
excluding the construction of a conforming garage from the allowable addition to a
nonconforming structure. The Planning Commission also suggested a discretionary
process with specific findings addressing when development of a nonconforming
structure is hindered by particulars such as existing size or the built circumstances
which may not be applicable elsewhere.
DISCUSSION
Purpose and Intent
The purpose of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) is to encourage
nonconforming structures to become more conforming over time through establishing
procedures and criteria for continuation, maintenance, and expansion. This is currently
achieved by limiting additions to nonconforming structures to 50 percent of the existing
gross floor area and further limiting additions to 10 percent when the required parking is
not provided on-site. All additions must also comply with the applicable Zoning Code
development standards.
In cases where a structure is nonconforming only due to built circumstances (e.g.
setback encroachments, height, etc.) and the required parking is provided, the 50 -
percent limitation will generally allow the property owner to develop the property near or
to its maximum floor area limitation. However, in cases where the structure is
nonconforming and required parking (garage) is not provided, the addition of required
parking can account for a substantial portion of the 50 -percent allowance, especially
when the existing structure is small in relation to the lot size.
Proposed Amendment
In order to help ensure equitable development opportunities, the proposed amendment
would: (1) exclude the additional square footage incurred when adding conforming
parking and allow the additional square footage to be included as existing gross floor
area for the purpose of calculating the allowable 50 -percent addition; and (2) allow an
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, December 4, 2014
Page 3
addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area subject to the approval of a
modification permit by the Planning Commission when additional findings can be made
relative to the nonconforming status, neighborhood compatibility, and architectural
design of the structure. Several scenarios of the Zoning Code regulation are provided in
Attachment No. PC 4.
The current findings for a modification permit and the proposed additional findings to
allow additions larger than 50 percent of the existing gross floor area are provided
below.
Current required findings for a modification permit:
1. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the
neighborhood;
2. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical
characteristic(s) of the property and/or structure, and/or characteristics of the use;
3. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated
with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in
physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Code;
4. There are no alternatives to the Modification Permit, that could provide similar
benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and
occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public; and
5. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or
welfare to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or
the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with
the provisions of this Zoning Code.
Proposed additional findings:
a. The existing development is a legal nonconforming structure.
b. The architectural design and materials of the existing nonconforming structure and
proposed addition(s) are consistent with Section 20.48.180 (Residential
Development Standards and Design Criteria).
C. The existing nonconforming structure and the proposed addition(s) will be
compatible with the existing and allowed pattern of development for the
neighborhood.
d. The level of nonconformity will not pose a health and safety threat for the property
owner, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is not inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures).
4 11-144
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, December 4, 2014
Page 4
Another potential component of the proposed amendment discussed during the October
Planning Commission hearing was to limit the overall development of a nonconforming
structure to 75 percent of the maximum allowable floor area for the property. Staff
evaluated this criterion in depth and determined this "ceiling" would not be equally
applicable Citywide. For instance, several zoning districts and most residential planned
communities are governed by lot coverage rather than a square footage maximum or
have string line policies in place to limit the area of development. Additionally, those
nonconforming structures which are already at 75 percent of the maximum allowable
floor area and currently allowed additions pursuant to the existing Zoning Code would
not be eligible for any additional square footage. Therefore, staff does not recommend
establishing this criterion.
Summary
Although staff believes Zoning Code Section 20.38.040 generally accomplishes the
goals of property owners with nonconforming developments, it is acknowledged there
may be inequities related to smaller nonconforming structures. "Smaller" is subjective
and varies by neighborhood and zoning district within the City; therefore, there is no
singular definition. As such, the inclusion of the modification permit process to increase
the allowable addition may be utilized as a method that will limit potential hindrances
against smaller structures based on the particulars of the development. Furthermore,
the exclusion of the addition of conforming parking against the 50 -percent addition
allows for a larger addition, especially where the existing structure may be smaller and
does not provide the required parking area.
Together, these components should help to allow equitable development opportunities
for properties containing nonconforming structures Citywide.
Alternatives
1) The Planning Commission may modify the proposed amendment; or
2) The Planning Commission may determine a code amendment is not necessary.
Environmental Review
This item is covered by the general rule that California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) applies only to projects, which have potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not
subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
5 11-145
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment
Planning Commission, December 4, 2014
Page 5
Public Notice
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2014, to
the meeting of December 4, 2014. The item also appeared on the agenda for this
meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:
i M.3•
.1 P19
rl;Eli„ -
ATTACHMENTS
Submitted by:
PC 1 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval
PC 2 August 21, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
PC 3 October 23, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
PC 4 Examples
u_rur1Ae!
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution Recommending Approval
7 11-147
2 11-148
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2014-004
AMENDING SECTION 20.38.040 (NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES) REVISING THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWED
ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES (PA2014-
083)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. In August 2013, the Planning Commission denied a variance request to retain an existing
nonconforming structure while adding nearly 100 percent of the existing square footage
whereby the Zoning Code limits such additions to 50 percent.
2. An appeal was filed by the applicant on the basis that the allowed addition is hindered by
the size of the existing smaller structure on the property when compared to other
nonconforming properties that may already be developed with larger structures and can
add more square footage by right.
3. In February 2014, the City Council heard the appeal and continued the matter indefinitely,
but directed staff to review Zoning Code Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures)
as it relates to smaller structures.
4. On August 21, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the item in study session and
discussed potential changes.
5. On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the
potential changes in more detail with further examples. Direction was provided to staff to
provide further review of an option that would help to prevent hindrance of development
when a smaller nonconforming structure exists, but would not negate the purpose and intent
of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures).
6. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2014, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by,
the Planning Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to
Section 1506(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in
9 11-149
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 2 of 2
Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. The current Zoning Code provisions for additions to nonconforming structures hinder the
equitable development of properties containing smaller nonconforming structures when
compared to properties containing larger nonconforming structures.
2. The purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) is
maintained with the proposed changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of Code
Amendment No. CA2014-004 as set forth in Exhibit "A."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4T" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
M
Larry Tucker, Chairman
Jay Myers, Secretary
;1v
TO 11-150
[=RM7fW_%
Code Amendment No. CA2014-004 (proposed amendment is underlined)
20.38.040 — Nonconforming Structures
Nonconforming structures may be maintained, altered, or added on to, only in compliance
with the provisions of this Section.
A. Maintenance and repairs. Routine maintenance and repairs may be made to
nonconforming principal and accessory structures.
B. Nonstructural alterations. Changes to interior partitions or other nonstructural
improvements may be made to nonconforming principal structures, but shall not be
made to accessory structures.
C. Structural alterations. Structural elements, with the exception of foundations of
nonconforming principal structures (see Subsection D, below), may be modified,
repaired, or replaced. Structural alteration of nonconforming accessory structures is
not allowed.
D. Foundation alterations. Maintenance and repairs may be made to foundations of
nonconforming principal structures. A foundation of a nonconforming principal
structure may be modified, retrofitted, or replaced when necessary and in conjunction
with additions allowed in compliance with Subsections 20.38.040 G and 20.38.060 A,
below. For any alterations beyond routine repair or maintenance, the nonconforming
structure shall be required to be brought into compliance with all applicable standards
and regulations of this Zoning Code, except as provided in Subsection F, below.
Alterations to nonconforming accessory structures shall not be allowed.
E. Seismic retrofits. Alterations to nonconforming structures due to seismic retrofitting
requirements are allowed in compliance with Chapter 15.07 (Earthquake Hazard
Reduction in Existing Buildings) of the Municipal Code.
F. Reasonable accommodation. Improvements to a nonconforming structure that are
necessary to comply with an approved reasonable accommodation in compliance with
Section 20.52.070 (Reasonable Accommodations) shall be allowed.
G. Additions. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and the existing
nonconforming elements of the structure shall not be required to be brought into
compliance with the development standards of this Zoning Code subject to the
following limitations and the limitations provided in Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming
Parking).
Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the gross floor area of
the existing structure within any ten (10) year period or up to 75 percent with a
modification permit approved by the Planning Commission in compliance with
11 11-151
H.
Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and when the following additional
findings can be made:
a. The existing development is a legal nonconforming structure.
b. The architectural design and materials of the existing nonconforming
structure and proposed addition(s) are consistent with Section 20.48.180
(Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria).
C. The existing nonconforming structure and the proposed addition(s) will
be compatible with the existing and allowed pattern of development for
the neighborhood.
d. The level of nonconformity will not pose a health and safety threat for the
property owner, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and is not
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.38
(Nonconforming Uses and Structures).
2. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing
structure, shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the zoning
district;
3. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards and use
regulations of this Zoning Code; and
4. Additional parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 20.38.060
(Nonconforming Parking), below.
5. The square footage of the required parking areas identified below shall be
excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection 20.38.040 G.1 above,
but shall be included as gross floor area.
Required Parking
Maximum Excluded Areas
One -car garage
200 suare feet maximum
Two -car garage
400 square feet, maximum
Three -car arae
600 square feet, maximum
Exceptions.
1. Corona del Mar and Balboa Village. Existing nonresidential structures within Corona
del Mar and Balboa Village that are nonconforming because they exceed the allowed
floor area shall be exempt from the limits of this Section and may be demolished and
12 11-152
reconstructed to their pre-existing height and floor area, provided that not less than the
pre-existing number of parking spaces is provided.
2. Landmark structures. Landmark structures shall be exempt from the requirements of
this Chapter in compliance with Section 20.38.070 (Landmark Structures), below.
20.52.050 — Modification Permits
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide relief from specified development
standards of this Zoning Code when so doing is consistent with the purposes of this
Code and the General Plan, and does not negatively impact the community at large or
in the neighborhood of the specified development.
B. Review authority and allowable modifications. The Zoning Administrator shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for Modification Permits
applicable only to the following, subject to the findings identified in Subsection E.
(Required Findings), below:
1. Height modifications from exceptions identified in Part 3 (Site Planning
and Development Standards). The following modifications are limited to not
more than a 10 percent deviation from the standard being modified.
a. Chimneys, rooftop architectural features, and vents in excess of the
exception to the allowed height limits identified in Part 3 (Site Planning
and Development Standards);
b. Flag poles in excess of the exception to the allowed height limits; and
C. Heights of fences, hedges, or walls (except retaining walls).
2. Setback modifications. The following modifications are limited to not more
than a 10 percent deviation from the standard being modified.
a. Encroachments in front, side, or rear setback areas while still maintaining
the minimum clearances required by Section 20.30.110 (Setback
Regulations and Exceptions). Exceptions include the following:
(1) Modifications shall not be allowed for encroachments into alley
setbacks; and
(2) Modifications shall not be allowed for encroachments into bluff
and canyon setback areas.
b. Structural appurtenances or projections that encroach into front, side, or
rear setback areas.
13 11-153
3. Other modifications. The following modifications are not limited in the amount
of deviation from the standard being modified.
a. Distances between structures located on the same lot;
b. Landscaping standards in compliance with Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping
Standards);
C. Maximum allowed roof area for roof mounted equipment that exceeds
the allowed height limits identified in Part 3 (Site Planning and
Development Standards);
d. Size or location of parking spaces, access to parking spaces, and
landscaping within parking areas;
e. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for uses that have
nonconforming parking;
f. Increase in allowed floor area of additions for nonconforming structures
as identified in Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming Structures);
g,f-. Increase in allowed height, number, and area of signs; and
h.g: Increase in the allowed height of retaining walls.
14 11-154
Attachment No. PC 2
August 21, 2014, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
IS 11-155
10 11-156
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
ITEM NO.4 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CODE REVIEW (PA2014-083)
Site Location: City-wide
8/21/14
Chair Tucker noted this is a Study Session item meaning that no action will be taken by the Planning
Commission at this time.
Assistant Planner Ben Zdeba provided a presentation including background, a prior variance request related to
the matter, denial by the Planning Commission and subsequent appeal to Council. He reported that it was heard
by Council but the Item was continued indefinitely and directed staff to review the Municipal Code relative to
nonconforming structures, specifically smaller structures. He addressed the purpose of the nonconforming
chapter; specific criteria referenced and details of options discussed by staff. He outlined next steps and offered
to respond to questions.
In response to Commissioner Myer's inquiry regarding staffs preferred option, Mr. Zdeba stated that staff would
prefer Option Nos. 2 or 3 as stated in the report noting that Option No. 3 gives additional leeway by way of a
discretionary review in the case where there is a nonconforming portion of the property that might encroach on
one side making the structure nonconforming and allows for a case-by-case review of a property.
In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Zdeba addressed examples of nonconforming structures noting
there are a variety of different development standards within the residential zoning district section of the code.
He added that nonconforming structures and the scope of the discussion primarily Involve setback
encroachments and over height structures.
Commissioner Hillgren reiterated the intent and purpose of the nonconforming section of the code and stated an
interest in finding a way to help property owners who wish to bring nonconforming properties closer to
conformance. Mr. Zdeba indicated the options identified would help to encourage the addition of conforming
parking and also commented on the possibility of not supporting requests for increased offenses in terms of
nonconformance.
Chair Tucker touched on the background of the item and noted there could be an inequity wherein a property
owner with a larger structure built earlier on can add more square footage and develop the property further than
a property owner with a smaller structure built earlier on with similar nonconforming conditions. But he further
expressed concern with implementing a discretionary procedure to allow an addition up to 75 percent stating that
it could prevent the purpose of encouraging conformance.
Commissioner Hillgren discussed adding garages to address situations where parking is the nonconforming
issue and whether or not the new addition of parking would increase the total allowable addition with the 50
percent limitation.
Mr. Zdeba noted that staff considered stipulating a specific maximum square footage that could be excluded
from a garage depending on the number of parking spaces added. In response to Commissioner Koetting's
inquiry, he clarified Option No. 4 noting that it eliminates the discrimination between a smaller structure and
larger structure, but that staff had concerns with this option because there are areas of the City that are regulated
by lot coverage and others regulated by string -line policies.
Page 8 of 10
77 11-157
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Chair Tucker opened public comments.
8121/14
W. R. Dildine reported that there are only two of these properties that are in trouble. One property, near him, has
to abate its commercial use and another one that was demolished that complies with the current code. He
added there is possibly one in the 800 block. He suggested that something could be done to ease the pain of
the property owners in allowing them to redevelop their properties.
John Loomis, architect for the project that triggered this discussion, thanked staff and the Commission for
reviewing this matter. He stated that the existing regulation penalizes smaller property owners and commented
on Option No. 2 noting that in following same, the property would still be about 1,000 square feet below the
average property in the block. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider either Option Nos. 3 or 4.
He added that in his case, the nonconformity was created by a Zoning District change. He added that there are
other people that could benefit from this change as well.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
Chair Tucker stated he would like to see a more complete staff report that details the options in order to be
prepared to vote next time.
Ms. Wisneski stated that staff will bring the matter back as a Public Hearing item with documents presenting
options for the Planning Commission to consider.
Chair Tucker agreed and commented on the possibility of staff generating other options in the process of writing
the staff report.
Commissioner Hillgren stated he believes in merit -based approvals and encouraged finding ways in which
properties can become more conforming.
Ms. Wisneski reported that the matter will return to the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October
and will be properly noticed.
Commissioner Koetting requested examples of cases that have and have not worked.
Chair Tucker declared that the item will be heard by the Planning Commission at its second meeting in October.
Page 7 of 10
12 11-158
Attachment No. PC 3
October 23, 2014, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
1°9 11-159
20 11-160
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/23/14
�a r Tucker noted that he submitted changes to the minutes of October 2, 2014, as did Mr. Jim Mosher.
Chair Tucker0 erg public comments. Seeing no one wishing to provide comment, Chair Tucker closed public
comments.
Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren econded by Commissioner Brown and carried (5 — 0) to approve the
Planning Commission meeting minutes of October , 4 as amended.
AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Myers and Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Koetting and Kramer
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM D2Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
Site Location: Citywide
Recommended Action: Direct staff to return with a resolution amending the Zoning Code to include one (1)
of the options detailed in the staff report.
Deputy Director of Community Development Brenda Wisneski reported that the Planning Commission conducted a
study session in August, where an overview of the issue was presented along with potential options. She addressed
the Planning Commission's direction at that time, the actions that can be taken at this time and deferred to staff for a
report.
Assistant Planner Benjamin Zdeba provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing background, prior cases considered,
an overview of the intent and purpose of the nonconforming structures Zoning Code section to encourage the
conformance of nonconforming structures over time, City Council concerns, details of available and recommended
options, and various scenarios applying the recommended options.
In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry regarding the allowable percentage increase for a conforming property,
Assistant Planner Zdeba reported that if a property is completely conforming, owners can add square footage to the
maximum amount stipulated by floor area limitations. He added that different zoning districts have different regulations.
Total maximum allowable floor area includes the garage square footage. Mr. Zdeba clarified that the issue at hand was
more or less dealing with nonconforming setbacks rather than nonconforming parking.
Commissioner Hillgren noted that the City is trying to create an incentive for people to be more in conformance with
regard to parking and asked about incentives for people to reduce their setbacks or heights. Assistant Planner Zdeba
stated that in this case, the addition of a conforming garage is seen as an added benefit regarding the nonconforming
issue, and exclusion of the garage helps to eliminate the discrimination against smaller structures on properties that do
not currently provide required parking.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of achieving 100 percent of the maximum floor area.
Commissioner Lawler commented on Option No. 4 and asked about the discretionary review. Assistant Planner Zdeba
reported that the matter would go to the Zoning Administrator. A mechanism would be provided to review allowance for
additional square footage on a case-by-case basis. He added that Option No. 3 allows for the same provision, but
eliminates the discretionary review component.
Secretary Myers suggested that if the goal is to create more parking, it could be stated in Option No. 4 that attempting to
increase the amount of available parking on-site is a factor in the determination of allowing additional square footage
between 50 percent and 75 percent.
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the purpose of the zoning amendment is not to
incentivize additional parking, but to address small structures and the fact that they may be penalized for being small
structures dealing with nonconformities. She added that parking is a by-product of the zoning amendment.
Page 2 of 5
21 11-161
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
10/23/14
In response to Secretary Myers' question, it was noted that if parking is nonconforming, another code section provides a
10 percent addition limitation. In order to get more than a 10 percent addition, a property owner would have to provide
the Code -required parking.
Chair Tucker commented on the purpose of the nonconforming structure regulations was to encourage conformity. He
questioned whether or not the goal of the Zoning Code should be to allow an equitable expansion of nonconforming
structures so that small structures are treated like big structures if the overall goal is to achieve conformity. He added
that a discretionary process would need to be accompanied by definitive findings to help ensure that equitable expansion
of nonconformity would make sense. He expressed concerns regarding the findings and coming up with an appropriate
set of findings that would be a function of the size, condition and architecture of the structure. He opined that the level of
review for nonconforming structures should be the Planning Commission. He added that there should be a ceiling on the
percentage of allowable floor area that could be permitted with a discretionary review.
Chair Tucker invited public comments on this item.
John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, reported that the reason his clients appealed the case to the City Council was
because the ordinance is unfair and grants more to the "haves" than to the "have nots". He stated that all of the
options have the incentives for getting from the 10 percent to the 50 percent by improving parking to a fully -
conforming state. He added that his clients feel that Option No. 4 is the fairest of all the options presented and that
the strict percentage of a given area of a building favors those with more area and disfavors those with less. He also
added that there are factors involved that are not considered as a straight percentage of the existing area and
reiterated his clients' preference for Option No. 4.
In response to Chair Tucker's question, Mr. Loomis reported that it is possible that providing a cap on the allowable
floor area could work with a discretionary action. He added that if Option No. 4 passes, his clients would have a
reduction of approximately 300 square feet, resulting in nearly 1.75 times the buildable area. He added that the
options presented are creative and are going in the right direction. He noted the importance of having a discretionary
action involved to be able to deal with particulars of a case.
Chair Tucker commented on being fair versus being in conformity.
Amber Hormann stated her preference for Option No. 4 as it allows for the most livable space.
Gary Mobley, Attorney representing the Hormann's, spoke in support of Option No. 4, noting that it allows flexibility of
Planning and the Commission to address the unique situations of each property. He added that there will always be
flexibility regardless of whether Option No. 4 is selected or not in terms of a variance application. He added that
encouraging conformity needs to be balanced against the property rights of owners and the equity of each situation
as it is applied to each property.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
Chair Tucker noted that the important thing is to figure out what will make sense and make a recommendation that
must be complied with.
Commissioner Hillgren commented on the 50 percent limitation and added that with the current code there is an
intent to penalize for remaining nonconforming. He stated that using the existing building size may not be the right
starting point. Rather, the limitation should be based on what can be built on the property not the size of the home
today. He suggested that adding the square footage of a new garage to the denominator might encourage people,
where there is not a garage, to build one. The result would be a square footage bonus for having built a more
conforming project.
Discussion followed regarding setting a 75 percent of allowable floor area limitation as the maximum.
Secretary Myers commented on allowing property owners to maximize the value of their property, including the
garage, and setting a limit of 2.0, with the goal of conformity. He agreed that these matters should go before the
Planning Commission.
Page 3 of 5
22 11-162
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
10/23/14
Commissioner Lawler commented on Commissioners Hillgren and Myers' suggestion and indicated he would like to
see examples. Additionally, he wondered if it would be prudent to try to quantify what the discretion means relative
to Option No. 4 and what findings would be necessary in order to achieve that discretion.
Discussion followed regarding the importance of understanding what the findings would have to be and of input from
staff.
Commissioner Brown suggested findings regarding architecture, building structure and materials and how the
property became non -conforming.
Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez reported that staff does not see many nonconforming cases where the 50 percent
standard currently in effect is not sufficient to achieve what the property owner/developer is trying to achieve. He added
that the Hormann case is unusual, noting that many of the older homes that are nonconforming are usually torn down
and rebuilt. He agreed with the need for findings if the Planning Commission approves Option No. 4 and suggested an
additional finding regarding the degree of the nonconformity.
Chair Tucker added that the size of the structure should also be considered in the findings.
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski clarified that the Planning Commission is considering Option No. 4
and addressed inclusion of the garage in calculating the 50 percent. She reported that the modification permit could be
utilized and be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. She added that modification permit findings are
broad and can be augmented in accordance with the comments made above.
Chair Tucker agreed and reiterated that he would like to see a 75 percent limitation and that the goal is to encourage
conformity.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of eliminating the discretion and using 75 percent as the number and
the possibility of including a square footage bonus using the addition of a conforming garage.
Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (5 — 0) to continue the matter until the
Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2014.
AYES:
Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Myers and Tucker
NOES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
None
ABSENT:
Koetting and Kramer
ITEM NOS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
ITEM NO. 4 CO ITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. Update on eneral Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee
Deputy Community Development Director neski reported that the General Plan/Local Coastal Program
Implementation Committee meeting for this month wa celled but will meet on November 26, 2014, to review the draft
Implementation Plan.
2. Update on City Council Items
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that last week, Citycil approved the a -frame sign
ordinance for Corona del Mar and added a temporary (one year) program to be applied aTEQboa Village.
She reported that the Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration has been appealed to Ci uncil and is
scheduled for November 25, 2014.
Page 4 of 5
23 11-163
24 11-164
Attachment No. PC 4
Examples
25 11-165
20 11-166
PA2014-083, Attachment No. PC 3
Examples
Scenario
Current 20.38.040
Amended 20.38.040
Amended 20.38.040 Discretions
SFR
700 sa. ft. addition
1.300 so. ft. addition
Un to 1.750 sa. ft. addition
1,400 sq. ft. livable
(300 sq. ft. livable)
(900 sq. ft. livable)
(1,350 sq. ft. livable)
No garage
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
30'x 85' lot
2,100 sq. ft. SFR
2,700 sq. ft. SFR
3,150 sq. ft. SFR
f 5', s 3', r 5'
58% of max allowable
75% of max allowable
88% of max allowable
2.0 x buildable
Duplex
900 sa. ft. addition
1.500 sa. ft. addition
1.800 so. ft. addition
1,800 sq. ft. livable
(500 sq. ft. livable)
(1,100 sq. ft. livable)
(1,400 sq. ft. livable)
No garage
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
30'x 85' lot
2,700 sq. ft. Duplex
3,300 sq. ft. Duplex
3,600 sq. ft. duplex
f 5', s 3', r 5'
75% of max allowable
92% of max allowable
100% of max allowable
2.0 x buildable
SFR
800 sa. ft. addition
1.100 se. ft. addition
1.550 so. ft. addition
1,400 sq. ft. livable
(600 sq. ft. livable)
(900 sq. ft. livable)
(1,350 sq. ft. livable)
200 sq. ft. garage
(200 sq. ft. garage)
(200 sq. ft. garage)
(200 sq. ft. garage)
30'x 85' lot
2,200 sq. ft. SFR
2,700 sq. ft. SFR
3,150 sq. ft. SFR
f 5', s 3', r 5'
61 % of max allowable
75% of max allowable
88% of max allowable
2.0 x buildable
Duplex
1.100 sa. ft. addition
1.100 sa. ft. addition
NIA - development can be maxed out by right
1,800 sq. ft. livable
(1,100 sq. ft. livable)
(1,100 sq. ft. livable)
given its existing structure size.
400 sq. ft. garage
(two -car carport)
(two -car carport)
30'x 85' lot
3,300 sq. ft. Duplex
3,300 sq. ft. Duplex
f 5', s 3', r 5'
100% of max allowable
100% of max allowable
2.0 x buildable
SFR
550 so. ft. addition
1.150 sa. ft. addition
1.525 so. ft. addition
1,100 sq. ft. livable
(150 sq. ft. livable)
(750 sq. ft. livable)
(1,125 sq. ft. livable)
No garage
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
30' x 118' lot
1,650 sq. ft. SFR
2,250 sq. ft. SFR
2,625 sq. ft. SFR
f 20', s 3', r 5'
49% of max allowable
67% of max allowable
78% of max allowable
1.5 x buildable
Duplex
650 sa. ft. addition
1.250 sa. ft. addition
1.675 so. ft. addition
1,300 sq. ft. livable
(250 sq. ft. livable)
(850 sq. ft. livable)
(1,275 sq. ft. livable)
No garage
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
(400 sq. ft. garage)
30'x 118' lot
1,950 sq. ft. Duplex
2,550 sq. ft. Duplex
2,975 sq. ft. Duplex
f 20', s 3', r 5'
58% of max allowable
76% of max allowable
89% of max allowable
1.5 x buildable
' This amount includes the increase from including the addition of conforming garage towards the existing gross floor area.
27 11-167
•l I [KOl I I [•
T Com'
...................................... .......................%
,J
.................................................. .....................
r � ft.
DVP_ rvw
NBMC Section 20.38.040 (Nonconforming
Structures)
Criteria for continuation, maintenance and
expansion of nonconforming structures
Encourage increased conformance for
nonconforming structures
Expansion shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the existing
structure within any ten (io) year period
12/04/2014
Community Development Department- Planning Division
October 23, 2014 PC Hearing
• Evaluate excluding conforming garage
■ Include new garage square footage towards existing
for additions
• Consider a 75% ceiling for development
■ Craft additional findings for discretionary process
12/04/2014
Community Development Department- Planning Division
AMM] L-11
�k201L-Oa
Existing structure
No required parking provided
■ 400 sq. ft. (max) garage addition
■ Livable addition (50% of existing + new garage)
• Discretionary livable addition (up to 75% of existing + new garage)
C
12/04/20144
Community Development Department- Planning Division
50% of existing structure added
• No required parking provided
■ Garage addition
■ Livable addition (remainder of 50% after garage add)
CARPORT
AREA
12/04/2014
Community Development Department- Planning Division
Conduct a public hearing; and
Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council
adoption of Code Amendment No. CA2014-004;
or
Deny the Code Amendment and retain current
standard.
io/z3/zoiq
Community Development Department- Planning Division
ng Commission -
Item No. 5a: Additional Materials Presented At Meeting
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment (PA2014-083)
For more information contact:
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
949-644-3253
bzdebaQa newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 10, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be
conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the
City of Newport Beach will consider the following item:
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment - A Zoning Code Amendment for Section 20.38.040
(Nonconforming Structures) to modify the standards and process for reviewing building additions to homes that
do not conform to current zoning standards.
The item is covered by the general rule that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to
projects, which have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on December 4, 2014, by a vote of (5-0), the Planning
Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended that the City Council adopt Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2014-004 (PA2014-083).
All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this item. If you challenge this action in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals
are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64 (Appeals). The item may be continued to a
specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be
provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City
Clerk's Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach
website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning
Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this item.
For questions regarding details of the item please contact Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644-
3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov.
Project File No.: PA2014-083
Location: Citywide
Activity No.: CA2014-004
Q SEW aoR�
° m Leilani I. Brown, MMC, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
qG/Fp RN ..
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 10, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be
conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the
City of Newport Beach will consider the following item:
Nonconforming Structures Code Amendment - A Zoning Code Amendment for Section 20.38.040
(Nonconforming Structures) to modify the standards and process for reviewing building additions to homes that
do not conform to current zoning standards.
The item is covered by the general rule that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to
projects, which have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on December 4, 2014, by a vote of (5-0), the Planning
Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended that the City Council adopt Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2014-004 (PA2014-083).
All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this item. If you challenge this action in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals
are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64 (Appeals). The item may be continued to a
specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be
provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City
Clerk's Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach
website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning
Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this item.
For questions regarding details of the item please contact Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644-
3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov.
Project File No.: PA2014-083 Activity No.: CA2014-004
Location: Citywide
��tiWp�R,
/s/ Leilani I. Brown, MMC, City Clerk
o �
City of Newport Beach
9,Fp PN
Los Angeles ' Times
PROOF OF PUBLICATION ; "R
(2015.5 C.C.P.) _
STATE OF ILLINOIS T
County of Cook
I am a citizen of the united States and a resident of the County aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the
action for which the attached notice was published.
I am a principal clerk of the Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot,
which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on June 19, 1952, Cases
A24831 for the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and State of
California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and
published on the following date(s):
Jan 31, 2015;
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Chicago, Illinois
on this `W day of 20 IS .
[sign 'rej
435 N. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL 60611
3420888 — Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot
Page 1 of 2
Sold To:
City of Newport Beach - CU00072031
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Bill To:
City of Newport Beach - CU00072031
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
ff9-T&9 2 SAM
NOME tS HOMEY GIVEN that on Tu"day.
teary V, 200 at F p.m, a plbx Nar4V
W* N,' in ft Qty C . CMmbors at
10-0 Om 00n* D-KIO, N»Pcrrt Via. Tt-� CA
It4m,
A imp Cv 4t for sOCIM 20. .
i` tD
pocrutrr tot
that do not =form to ct *&a 7a.rFSq swdarft.
TN* tan;is�try .
91VILii M t ..a rty Act ( E - j to
Vis. _wvv pda'ft ,fit a sqvfkat
4# t of" tip wrd asO-M :10*m t can be SeGol
wdh cartaoty ftt tf t2 m =,,;ftW #�a t!
acftdy tI hm% a--4'dt Oact co
4`Warawrr -.VrA, L'Q=Wty 3 not Utjqct to CSA
NOTtce tS REASBY FURTHER Gt1 N vqat
that thea C?y CVJfU add* ZOPZV Cods k
Feta. CA -VU -0041
PAa"014-083.
AR ntot d part; may appy prt a
tast r y 01 towel to ft� mm. if you aa
*.tymos**-�wYou r atthe plbkh
sat ir*r *Qn 00.�mod to I* Oty.
at, or pt€cs to. tta$ pjst -` t st < Adnfirnftfta
tc ft pfobc ho ±ug u a.' . S'f %port and
i "'xy be two - at Ift C4 C?bdK's
too Ctux vitas OFW%G,; pv-t Saac€, C rM-
s#^av�rr.�rtt� tater-ss
fit #?sn rt°`S� FS` ,fit•.' s +ek�G'�''r.;;>:"
sG3 644--V531, bzd'rsri fir.
5 ; W W :;rk I. Stuw 4, WAC, Cry C=wt(
atyr I tuw t Mach
3414888 - Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot
Page 2 of 2