The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPOWERPOINT- 520 PACIFIC - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAppeal of Planning Commission Determination at 520 Pacific Street City Council March 1, 2011 Executive Summary Appeal of Planning Commission determination ? Issues for City Council consideration: ? Uses/structures must be lawfully/legally established and not 1. contrary to any applicable laws; That if laws are changed and nonconforming status does 2. apply, the status only applies to legally/lawfully established uses/structures; and, If a use/structure has been given nonconforming status, then 3. that use/structure must be continuously maintained without significant alteration. 2 Executive Summary A determination is necessary to uniformly set forth ? Citywide policy decisions and secure uniformity of application of the City Code. The decisions the Council makes will: Impact how unlawful uses/structures, non-permitted or ? unlawful construction, and nonconforming structures are addressed Clarify the responsibilities of owners ? 3 Background On July 27, 2010, property owner initiated contact by sending a ? written request that: Selling their home ? Buyers’ lender wanted a letter from the City that the City would allow ? the (two) units at the rear of their single family home to be rebuilt On August 4, 2010, City staff sent a response clarifying that the ? property is: Zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) ? A guest house would be permitted subject to the approval of a ? Conditional Use Permit (CUP); (no kitchen or cooking facilities and could not be rented) No permits for guest houses, no CUP approved to establish such use ? Provisions for reconstruction of a nonconforming building did not apply ? to structures or additions which have been illegallyconstructed or constructed without the benefit of permits Staff met with Mr. Fairbanks on various occasions to discuss ? alternatives 4 Background On September 10, 2010, on-site assessment revealed that several ? substandard and unpermitted modifications and additions on- site(refer to Table 1) A Notice and Order filed on the property which directed the ? property owner to: Obtain the necessary entitlement applications and/or ? Remove the nuisance conditions on the property ? Mr. Fairbanks appealed to the Planning Commission ? On December 14, 2010, The Planning Commission determined that: ? Based on provisions in the Ordinance, uses/structures existing prior to ? the adoption of Ordinance No. 157 (Nov. 6. 1961) could continue to exist regardless of any legal and/or illegal establishment. Planning Commission determined that there was evidence substantiating ? that the two units existed prior to 1961 and are therefore “nonconforming structures” and uses and may remain Ordered the property owners to comply with minimum Building Code ? requirements. 5 Appeal On December 23, 2010, Mayor appealed the Planning Commission’s actions. The general reasons noted in the appeal are as follows: “I do not concur with the determination of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. ? 4162 approving existing uses at 520 Pacific Street as nonconforming uses for the reason that it appears to me that the alleged nonconforming uses are not legal uses or permitted buildings and/or structures. The actions taken under Resolution No. 4161 with regard to the Building Code Violations ? ought, therefore, to be abrogated by virtue of the fact that the uses that are identified in Resolution No. 4162 as “nonconforming” are actually illegal and were not permitted. This view, however, in no way relieves the property owner of his obligation to comply with the various building code violations. There is, in my view, a need for a discussion to clarify that the Tustin City Code (“Code”) ? requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code.” 6 City Council Appeal Hearing The hearing is de novo. ? Issues for consideration: ? Whether structures/uses must have been legally 1. establishedto be nonconforming Determination if nonconforming status may be afforded and 2. how the nonconforming provisions would apply to the structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street 7 Non-conforming Structures and Uses Provisions The1927,1940UniformBuildingCode(UBC),andevery ? BuildingCodeadoptedthereafterrequiredlawful establishmentofstructuresanduses The1947ZoningCode,variousprovisionsofthe1961Code, ? andthecurrentZoningCoderequirethelawfulestablishment ofstructuresanduses Nonconformingprovisions: ? 1947-“Ausewhichlawfullyoccupiedabuildingorland...” ? 1961–“Anybuildingorstructureexistingatthedateofthe ? adoptionofthisordinancewhichisnon-conforming...” 1989–“Anyuseofland,buildingorstructurewhichislegaland ? nonconforming...” 8 Nonconforming –520 Pacific Street Owner has noted that both rear units existed at the time of ? adoption of the Zoning Code and were used and maintained; therefore should be considered nonconforming structures The structures and uses could nothave been lawfully ? established and continually rented out Per the 1929 deed/Notice of Completion-“dwelling house and ? garage” Structures/uses not consistent with Building Codes ? No rental units were ever allowed per Zoning Code ? No evidence that these uses and structures have been continually ? maintained Evidence of change in occupancy classification and multiple additions, ? alterations, repairs, and construction done to the structures that are not in conformance with Building or Zoning Code requirements 9 Current Site Plan 520 Pacific 10,000 sq. ft. lot ? Main house 1. Two-story garage with upper dwelling unit 2. Rear unit located at ground level 3. Detached storage/recreation room 4. Carport 5. Small storage unit at rear PL 6. 4 6 1 32 5 NTS 10 City Code Issues 5’ min. for guest house. Current structure is over property line Insufficient parking 5’-15’ distance between main house Min. 12,000 sq. ft. lot for a second or third unit and guest house depending upon Lot size is 10,000 sq. ft building height. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, providing no Currently, structures attached by cooking facility is installed or maintained, and not rented carport. No separation provided The guest rooms have kitchens and were rented out 11 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Additions done Issues: over several The use of the property as a triplex (with 3 units) changes the building ? decades occupancy from R3 (single family residential) to R1 (multiple family) It could not be determined if footing/foundations exist to provide without permits ? adequate structural bracing and support to the structures No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance ? with one hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants Pursuant to the zoning code; the property does not have sufficient lot ? size to accommodate a second or third unit (Requires min. 12,000 sq. No permits for ft. lot; however this lot is 10,000 sq. ft) Guest unit (no kitchen facilities) requires CUP. upper or rear (2) ? This number of units require s a minimum of 7 parking stalls to support ? residential units the added residential use. Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit; California Fire Code Section Note: Siding ? Unknown 102.3 Change of use or occupancy; California Fire Code Section 102 Unsafe Building or Structures horizontal foundation, 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit bracing, and ? then vertical 1927 UBC Sec. 2204 Foundations requiredCalifornia Fire Code Section supports ? 102 Unsafe Building or Structures 1927 UBC Sec. 503 Mixed Occupancy ? Structures TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 –Permits ? inconsistent with Required 1927 and 2007 California Building Code Table 503; California Fire Code Section ? subsequent 110.1 Unsafe Conditions Building Codes TCC 9223a7(b)-minimum building site for second residential unit is ? 12,000 square feet and uses TCC 9223b2 Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, providing no inconsistent with ? cooking facility is installed or maintained, subject to Conditional Use 1947, 1961, & Permit subsequent Zoning Codes 12 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Issues: Window at PL requires 5ft setback ? The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the ? property line do not comply with fire protection requirements. The Built over opening is not permitted as shown propertyline Exterior wall is not fire rated; ? Primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or ? other emergency. Built over PL ? The staircase is built over the property line A guest unit requires a 5 ? foot setback to property line (PL). There are several issues Inappropriate associated with the location of this staircase; most imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. fire protection Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Wallsand 2007 CBC Section ? 1024.3 Exit discharge location 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls andTCC 9223b2(e) ? requires 5 ft. setback to property line 1927 UBC Sec. 3206 Roof Drainage, 2007 CBC Section 1101.1 all ? roofs shall be drained into a separate storm sewer system, and 2007 Insufficient CBC Section J109.4 –Drainage across property line ingress/egress 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Wallsand Section 1403 of TCC ? for tenant 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code 13 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Issues: Railing has no intermediary posts and the ? run and rise are not compliant with Insufficient Building Code requirements nor is the accessibility unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children. Note: Given that the structure at this ? location is constructed over the property line a person that may fall through, would fall onto the adjacent property. Code Violations: No inner 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit ? posts 1927 UBC 3305 Railings ? TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California ? Building Code A105.1 –Permits required TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California ? Building Code 1012 Handrails–handrails required for stairways TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California ? Building Code 1013 Guards 14 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Issues: Heater installed Furnace installed without required permits ? without permit and does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard. Exposed electrical next to unpermitted ? furnace which causes potential fire hazard. Electrical device next to heater ? Code Violations: 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing ? Code 1927 UBC Sec. 3707 Warm Air Furnaces ? 1927 UBC Sec. 3714 Other Sources of Heat ? 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing ? Code TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California ? Building Code A105.1 –Permits required Electrical device next to heater w/o permits Gas line installed w/o permits 15 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Issues: Multiple additions Shower added on to original to structure over ? structure. This requires a time building permit to add additional square footage (pop- out) and permits for plumbing, and waterproofing. Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application ? for Permit 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Shower added (date ? Plumbing Code unk.) without permits TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 ? California Building Code A105.1 –Permits required) 16 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Issues: Rough-sawn lumber No rating separation between walls of ? garage and living units; thus exposing Fire tenants above and next to the garage to separation fire hazard originating in the garage. was removed Electrical wiring: Romexcannot be ? exposed or unprotected and must be attached/secured. (Romexwas first used in the 1950’s. Color coding (yellow) wasn’t available until 2001) Code Violations: New wiring and new 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls ? electrical junction box 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing ? Code 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit ? 2007 CEC Article 334.15 Exposed Work ? and Article 330.30 Securing and Supporting 2007 CBC Table 406.1.4 Fire-Resistance ? Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance ABS Piping – 1968 17 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Unit behind the Garage Issues: Physical evidence suggests the units were ? built no earlier than late 1960’s; 5 foot setback required to property line to ? protect occupants from fire hazards; or Safety personnel responding to an emergency. Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls ? 2007 CBC Table 602 Fire-Resistance Rating ? Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance (1927 UBC Section 1403, less than 3 feet) Min. 5 ft setback required (zero -4 ft ? provided) Min. 5 ft TCC 9223b2 minimum side yard setback 5 setback ? feet required (zero -4 ft provided) 18 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Unit behind the Garage Dressed lumber Issues: (cut smaller) Additions created separate ? attic “rooms”; Dressed lumber is a smaller ? cut that was not typical in 1929 Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings ? and Walls Paneling from 2007 CBC Table 602 Fire- ? mid-addition Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance (1927 UBC Section 1403, less than 3 feet) 19 Evidence of Building/Zoning Code Violations Issues: Heater installed with a gas line without ? permits. It is installed on a combustible wood sided ? wall which poses a potential fire hazard Heater installed due to the combustible material without permits Unsecured and exposed gas line on the ? mounted on interior which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit flammable surface Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit ? 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing ? Code 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit ? 2007 CMC Section 1311.2.6 Hangers, Supports, and Anchors and 1311.7 Outlets Unsecured gas line TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California ? Building Code A105.1 –Permits required on interior of unit Subject to manufacture's installation ? standards and mechanical/plumbing permit 20 Evidence of Zoning Code Violations Issues: Kitchen cooking facilities not ? Kitchen/cooking permitted in guest unit. facilities in Plumbing and electrical installed upper unit and ? without permits. Permits are required rear unit without permits to insure that life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Code Violations: 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and ? Plumbing Code TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities ? permitted in guest unit TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 ? California Building Code A105.1 – Permits required 21 Nonconforming as it Applies to 520 Pacific Street 22 Recommendation That the City Council adopt Resolution No.11-15 ? determining that: “Nonconforming structures/uses” as set forth in the Tustin ? City Code means that such structures/uses were: lawfully erected, established; have been lawfullyand continuously maintained without significant alteration; and, Based on said determination order the cessation of the two ? dwelling units/guest houses and the correction of code violations of structures/uses for conformance with Tustin City Code at 520 Pacific Street. 23