Laserfiche WebLink
City of Newport Beach <br />Hearing Officer Resolution <br />Abatement Extension— Dr. Frankenberger <br />(601 Irvine Avenue) <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />2. The length of time the use was operating as a nonconforming use justifies <br />the extension of the abatement period beyond the code specified one year. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The building was constructed in 1948 as a mixed -use <br />building. It has included a nonresidential use and dwelling unit since its original <br />construction. The property was annexed to the city in 1956. The building and mixed -use <br />have been nonconforming for the last 55 years. Therefore, an extension to the one -year <br />abatement period is justified due to the significant length of time that the nonconforming <br />use has been operating before becoming subject to abatement.. <br />3. The existing structure is suitable for conversion to an alternate use, as an <br />expansion of the existing residential unit. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The current portion of the building occupied by the dentist <br />office is suitable for an expansion of the existing residential use without extensive <br />demolition, or major renovation. An expansion of the existing residential use would <br />conform to current Municipal Code requirements pertaining to floor area and parking <br />(two -car garage exists on site). <br />4. No harm to the public will result if the nonresidential use remains beyond <br />the one year abatement period. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The existing mixed -use was established 63 years ago, prior <br />to annexation and has not proven to be incompatible or detrimental to the <br />neighborhood. It is anticipated that the continued dental office use will not have any <br />negative impact on the residential uses or school use in the vicinity. <br />5. The cost and feasibility of relocating the use to another site cannot be <br />accommodated within the code specified one year abatement period. <br />Facts in Support of Finding: The relocation of the present use would be costly since <br />there is no storefront unit or comparable building located in the vicinity. Consequently, <br />relocation would result in a loss of clientele and could result in a prolonged loss of <br />revenue as clientele is re- established in a new location. In addition, the costs associated <br />with the improvements made to the interior of the structure to accommodate the dental <br />office would also be lost or not fully recovered by relocation. <br />WHEREAS, this activity has been determined to be categorically exempt under <br />the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing <br />Facilities). This class of projects has been determined not to have a significant effect on <br />the environment and is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This activity is also <br />P: \Users \PL \gtihared \Pi \'s\PAti - 2010\ PA2010- 1., 17\ PI \'ALDOMPA2p10- Id7Reoof Approval -FINAL HO12 -15- <br />201 l .doex <br />