The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSS5 - Code Amendment Update Related to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070)Q SEW Pp�T CITY OF z NEWPORT BEACH c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report September 10, 2019 Agenda Item No. SS5 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner, jmurillo(a�newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3209 TITLE: Code Amendment Update Related to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070) ABSTRACT: In May of 2019, the City Council initiated amendments to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 15 (Building and Construction), Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) related to building height and massing, third story development standards, and beach cottage preservation. Staff conducted a community meeting on August 19, 2019, presenting the proposed amendments to the public and design community. Staff will provide an update to proposals and the comments rec for the City Council's input on the RECOMMENDATION: the City Council regarding the jived at the community meeting. proposed amendments. current amendment Lastly, staff is asking Receive presentation and provide staff direction regarding proposed amendments. BACKGROUND: On Monday, August 19, 2019, staff held a community meeting to share potential code amendments intended to minimize bulk and mass associated with current residential development trends. Specifically, three separate amendments were proposed: 1. Third Floor Massing- Establish limitations regulating covered roof deck areas and redefining the definition of gross floor area to include unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or greater. 2. Single -Unit and Two -Unit Developments in the Multiple Residential Zoning District - Restrict single -unit and two -unit dwellings developed on lots zoned for Multiple Residential (RM) to the development standards applicable to the standards of the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District. SS5-1 Code Amendment Update Related to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070) September 10, 2019 Page 2 3. Cottage Preservation- Provide an incentive to preserve small cottages while allowing additions and alterations thereby discouraging full redevelopment of property. The meeting was well attended by over 60 members of the public and design community. Generally, the proposed amendments related to reducing third floor massing and incentives for preservation of cottages were well received and supported by the community. However, several property owners of RM zoned lots were in attendance and shared significant concerns related to the proposed amendment to restrict height and massing of single -unit dwellings and duplex structures in the RM zone, including loss of property values and unequal application of standards to properties in the same zone. Staff also received written correspondence, which is included as Attachment A. STUDY SESSION: Prior to proceeding with the proposed amendments, staff will provide the City Council an overview of the proposed amendments shared during the community meeting and a summary of the comments received (Attachment B). After receiving City Council direction at the study session, staff will present the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations, and ultimately return to the City Council for final review and adoption. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Correspondence Attachment B — Study Session Presentation SS5-2 Attachment A Written Correspondence Received SS5-3 8/24/2019 JF Carlson Architects, Inc. ARCHITECTS INC. JAMES F. CARLSON AIA ifcarlson(Wroadrunner. com 2300 CLIFF DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92663 PHONE 949-645-3051 FAx 949-645-4851 CELL 714-606-5889 California Architectural License # C-13773 Mr. Jamie Murillo Senior Planner City of Newport Beach One Civic Center Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Residential Design Standards: Single Unit and Two -unit Developments in the Multiple Residential Zone Dear: Jamie, attended your presentation on the Residential Design Standards this week and agree with your amendments on the items the pertain to the; Third Floor Massing and Cottage Preservation. However; I disagree with your amendment to the Single -unit and Two -Unit developments in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning Districts. As an Architect who has designed multiple projects in the City of Newport Beach RM Zones for 30' foot lots in both in the 29'/ 24' Foot and 33'/ 28' Foot categories, I would like to offer my opinions on this proposed amendment. agree that the single-family developments in the RM zones should not be entitled to maximum height limits allowed in these zones. But I disagree that the Two -Unit developments should be restricted from the maximum height limits, as this is exactly what the intention of the RM zones was created for; to allow for a greater density with the development of these types of projects. As you said yourself it's impossible to develop a 3 Unit development with these lot sizes because of the required parking requirements. Therefore, you are proposing a restriction that RM zones were created to allow for these increased densities. By allowing for these greater heights it gives the architect the opportunity to design and develop projects that create much better environments that meet all the requirements of these zones. have attached a project that I designed a few years ago in the RM zone with the 33'/ 28' height restrictions; it has just completed construction and is a good example of what can be accomplished with the current requirements and height restrictions. Page I 1 SS5-4 8/24/2019 JF Carlson Architects, Inc. The project is located in the Corona del Mar RM zone with 33'/ 28' foot height restrictions. See the attached photo's the show the massing and the architectural features of the completed project. The project is: Corona del Mar Condos 312 & 314 Dahlia Place Newport Beach, Ca. • The project features; Two 3 story detached Units with 7 view decks including a roof top deck • The Front unit is approx. 2050 Sq. Ft. Rear unit is approx.1990 Sq. Ft. and was designed to be within 1.5 Sq. Ft. of the maximum allowable buildable area. • It was Designed to meet the unique site requirements with stepped back property lines in the front and front and back easements. • The units were designed to blend with the existing lower structures in both the front street and rear alley access points. • They were also designed to provide separation and privacy, and even though they are condominiums they were designed to be completely separate units. This feature would be very difficult to achieve with the lower height restriction amendment. • As an added bonus they both were able to increase the outdoor areas by utilizing the un -buildable city property adjacent to the Frenleaf retaining wall. They would have been successful designs even without the utilization of the adjacent city property, but this was a nice added feature. also think with the higher densities that will be mandated by the State of California early next year that this is not the time to further restrict the RM zone requirements for Two Unit developments. Sincerely, yam. � 60't,60*V James F. Carlson, AIA Cc: Seimone Juris Samir Goshen Peggy Palmer Sandra Ayres Page 12 SS5-5 DJI_0115 copy.jpg SS5-7 From: Catherine <catherinewolcott@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 11:45 AM To: Dixon, Diane; O'Neill, William; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Koetting, Peter; Rosene, Mark; Leung, Grace; Jacobs, Carol; Harp, Aaron; Summerhill, Yolanda; Jurjis, Seimone; Campbell, Jim; Murillo, Jaime Cc: candwmartin@sbcglobal.net; bmartinworks@sbcglobal.net; Joni Martin; Cynthia Martin Subject: Proposed changes to RM development standards - Objection letter from Martin Family Trust Attachments: IMG_4094.jpg; IMG_4103.jpg; IMG_4112.jpg; IMG_4116.jpg; IMG_4124.jpg; IMG_4125.jpg; IMG_4122.jpg Members of the Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff: As I will be out of town on August 19, the date of the community outreach meeting on changes to the Residential Multifamily (RM) development standards, I hereby submit the preliminary objections of the Martin Family Trust, owner of three RM -zoned lots at 1824 West Ocean Front, to the proposed Zoning Code changes. Please note that the objections below do not apply to the City Council's direction to consider Zoning Code changes to preserve beach cottages, or to reduce the impact of improperly enclosed third -floor decks in R-2 zones. Those are different issues that should be considered separately. Requiring R-1 and R-2 zoning standards for some but not all structures in an RM zone is a novel approach to zoning that I never saw applied or considered during the seven years I practiced municipal law. It is inconsistent with state law governing zoning in general law cities. None of the attorneys specializing in land use that I have consulted with, or any of the developers I discussed the matter with, have seen this approach suggested or implemented before. The developers, however, made it clear that losing flexibility and/or height of structures could impact our property value, particularly in a block such as ours where so many lots are already fully built up to or near the current development standard limits. I apologize for the length of my comments below, but it is important that all my family's objections be included in the administrative record. For those of you who do not have time to wade through this entire letter, the summary of our arguments is as follows: The proposed changes will reduce the property values and impinge on the property rights of owners of RM -zoned property. They will create a large number of nonconforming structures. They will also spot -zone some or all of our lots down to R-2. • The proposed changes will not address the City Council's stated objective of reducing mass and preventing excessive contrast between the heights of structures on neighboring properties. The proposed changes place an undue burden on RM -zoned property owners who have not already fully developed their properties, and confer an undue benefit on those that have. This is SS5-8 in contravention of the uniform treatment principles of Government Code Section 65852, and the cases interpreting it. Quality design standards and articulation requirements would be a better solution to the City's concerns about the physical appearance of the RM zoning districts, and could enhance property values as well. Zoning Code changes that effectively create downzoning should be handled through the General Plan amendment process. For the reasons set forth more fully below, I respectfully request that City elected officials and staff either: (a) leave RM zoning and development standards as they are, with no change, or (b) exempt the 1800 block of West Ocean Front, and other similarly situated RM -zoned areas, from the proposed changes to RM development standards. 1. Proposed development standard changes will result in reduction of property values and diminished rights of orooerty owners in RM zoning districts. My family and I are concerned that the Council's proposed changes to development standards in the RM zoning district will substantially reduce our property rights and our property's value. The majority of the similarly affected neighboring property owners that we have been able to reach share that concern. As the Newport Beach Zoning Code is currently written, owners of properties in the RM zoning districts can build one-, two- or three -unit structures on their property. This allows owners the appropriate level of flexibility to use their property in a way that best suits their needs while allowing structures that are consistent with surrounding structures. The proposed amendments which the City Council directed staff to consider would drastically alter this. If the proposed changes are adopted, RM owners may still build up to three units per lot (where individual lot size and location allows), but would have to apply R-1 or R-2 development standards if they chose (or were required to) build structures containing less than three dwelling units. In many cases, the highest and best use of a particular property is not a three -unit building, especially with the City's stringent onsite parking requirements. As detailed below, only one of the buildings on the 1800 block of West Ocean Front is a three -unit building, and many are already built at or near the current allowed height. Adoption of the proposed changes would significantly increase the number of nonconforming buildings on our block, and the burden on owners of nonconforming property as well as the administrative burden of the City would be commensurately increased. City planning staff has told us that on some or all of our lots we would have difficulty meeting the onsite parking requirements for three units because of our alley frontage measurements. Therefore, the proposed changes would effectively spot -zone some or all of our lots down to R-2, while many other SS5-9 single- and two -unit properties on the block are already built to the full currently permitted height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), while only having to provide parking for single- or two-family dwellings. 2. Proposed development standard changes will have little or no impact on the City Council's stated justification for the changes. To the best of my knowledge, the only publicly stated justification the City Council provided for this proposed Zoning Code change is to reduce the impression of mass and height that taller buildings create. However, the proposed changes do nothing to address the Council's stated concerns. As noted above, many RM -zoned properties on our block have already been built to or near the maximum height allowed. If this change is adopted, owners of the remaining properties who can will simply build more three -unit buildings to the maximum height allowed in the RM zoning districts. The visual mass of a three -unit building will have the identical impact that a similarly sized two- or one - unit building would have, no matter what those buildings contain inside. To illustrate this, I have attached photographs of some of the largest buildings on the 1800 block of West Ocean Front. Bearing in mind that only one of these buildings contains three units, I challenge members of the Council or Planning Commission to identify solely by visual inspection which of these buildings are three -unit, two - unit, or single-family dwellings. Since the RM zoning districts are small in size and scattered throughout the City, the overall reduction in perceived mass and scale of buildings would be de minimis at best. Therefore, the proposed solution has no nexus with the desired outcome, and the legal and practical justifications for its adoption are questionable. Now that I have raised this point with staff, I fully expect that future City communications will include references to the desirability of providing additional housing units and meeting RHNA standards. I know staff's RHNA concerns are sincere. However, at no time during my seven -and -a -half year tenure in the Newport Beach City Attorney's Office were RHNA standards met. Because of the comparatively small number of RM -zoned properties within the City, this proposed change will do little to further that goal. Furthermore, Council members did not cite providing additional dwelling units as a factor at any point during their April 23 d study session or May 28th Council meeting when they discussed this proposed change. Instead, they cited concerns about visual massing, and contrasts in heights and mass of immediately adjacent properties. 3. On well over half the parcels in the 1800 block of West Ocean Front, either structures already exist at or near the maximum height, or the owners have expressed a desire to build to a similar height. I have reviewed all the buildings on the 1800 block of West Ocean Front, as well as the R-2 zoned structures in the 1700 block and R-1 zoned 1900 blocks of West Ocean Front. I encourage staff and elected officials to do the same. There are numerous tall three-story structures in all three blocks, and many of those are single- and two -unit buildings. I do not have measurements of the roof heights of all of these buildings, but here is some preliminary information: • The structure at 1810 West Ocean Front was determined by the Newport Beach Fire Marshall to be a four-story building in 2008 or 2009. The top rail of its roof deck is over 47 feet above SS5-10 finished grade; its roofline is over 45 feet above finished grade. Although this structure was originally built as a three -unit building, it has since been converted to single-family use. • The structure at 1806 West Ocean Front is a two -unit structure; its roofline is approximately 43 feet above finished grade at the top of the roof ridge. • 1818 West Ocean Front is a three-story, three -unit condominium building, built to the maximum height allowed. • 1820 West Ocean Front is a three-story, two -unit condominium building under construction, built to the maximum height and FAR allowed. • One two-story property on the 1800 block is undergoing review of plans that will allow the owner to build a single-family home with a roof ridge line at over 43 feet above finished grade. • Owners of two of the remaining two-story single -lot buildings on the block have expressed interest in building their properties up in the future. • My family has been aware for some time that our three lots will need to be developed and built up at some point, even if the property is kept in the family. • This leaves only four out of 14 lots on the 1800 West Ocean Front block (less than 30%) whose owners have not yet either fully developed or expressed an intention to develop their property. As we have not yet spoken to all property owners, it is possible that even more owners than we are aware of are interested in developing or improving their property to a degree consistent with their neighbors. • In the adjacent R-2 zoned 1700 block, on the 13 lots on the block there are five buildings with partial third stories in place, and a sixth under construction. • On the 13 half -depth lots in the adjacent R-1 zoned 1900 block, there appear to be three buildings with a partial third story, and all but one of the lots appear to be built out to the maximum height allowed. In short, adopting the proposed changes will not reduce the impression of height and massing on our block, or either adjacent block, and would unduly burden the property owners who have not yet built their properties to the maximum height allowed. Quality design standards and design articulation would be a better solution to the City's concerns about the physical appearance of the RM zoning districts, and could enhance property values as well. 4. State law supports a policy of uniform treatment of all parcels within a zoniniz district. California Government Code Section 65852 sets forth the standard zoning principle of uniform treatment within a zoning district. The best summary of the effect of this code section's provisions is provided by Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 CA4th 997, which states: SS5-11 [Government Code] Section 65852 provides that the regulations contemplated by section 65850 must be uniform within each of the zones contemplated by section 65851, but may differ from zone to zone. The general meaning of this sequence is not difficult to understand: Cities and counties may create rules and they may create zones; the rules should be the some for each parcel within the zone but may be different for parcels in different zones. Our Supreme Court aptly has explained the fundamental reason for having a scheme of this nature ... "A zoning scheme, after all, is similar in some respects to a contract; each party foregoes rights to use its land as it wishes in return for the assurance that the use of neighboring property will be similarly restricted, the rationale being that such mutual restriction can enhance total community welfare." 157 CA4th at 1008-1009 (Italics added, citations omitted) In addition, the Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use court summarized some of the policy underlying Government Code Section 65852: "If a zoning scheme is like a contract, the uniformity requirement is like an enforcement clause, allowing parties to the contract to challenge burdens unfairly imposed on them or benefits unfairly conferred on others." 157 CA4th at 1009 I am, of course, aware that the uniformity requirement of Government Code Section 65852 applies directly to general law cities and that charter cities may develop their own zoning provisions. However, Section 65852 codifies one of the basic principles of consistent, evenhanded zoning practices. Applying R-1 and R-2 development standards to selected residential structures in the RM zoning districts is inconsistent with this policy. It would burden property owners who have not already built up their properties, while depriving them of benefits enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. 5. Zoning Code changes with this level of impact on a limited number of property owners are more properly handled through the General Plan amendment process. Whether or not the City Council intended it, this proposal gives the impression that the City is attempting to downzone certain RM -zoned areas without going through the required General Plan amendment. If the City wants that result, it should go through the proper General Plan amendment process, with the full public awareness that entails. Sincere thanks for your consideration, and your time. I hope the City can develop an alternate approach which does not create an undue burden on a handful of RM property owners. Regards, Catherine Martin Wolcott SS5-12 6df �60� SWI SS5-13 7 . # L -a r .�..� - op +~"�+: AIO 4F low' �. _r�- � - bdf•£0��_ JWI SS5-14 � � � � Illllllllllf art I SS5-15 F { ___ _ _ _ r I _�__ rn cn SS5-16 LA SS5-17 6df'�Z�� SWI ss5-18 6df'SZ�� `JWI SS5-19 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL: AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT WE REQUEST THAT THE ZONING AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOR THE 1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT BE RETAINED AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST . 40,-e 1,7,.? .0, 1,Y..? 4/ ! 82 4 SIGNATURE PROPERTY ADDRESS SS5-20 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL: AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT WE REQUEST THAT THE ZONING AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOR THE 1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT BE RETAINED AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST SIGNATURE PROPERTY ADDRESS ... . ......... TO THE NEWPI-DIRT BEACH CITY , COUNC-21L.- ASPROPERT'If 0`VVNLc-R-'S 'N-HF-'i000-ALOCI\l�'DFW,'----qTof- AN RONT WF ZONING AND BUILDING S-hANDARDS FOR THE 1000 REQ�.UEST THAT THE BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT RET -AINED AS THEY CURRENTLY Ad A L)IGNATJURI ", P/ L�ll D 0 ROr., PERTY ADDRESS SS5-21 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL; AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT WE REQUEST THAT THE ZONING AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOR THE 1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT BE RETAINED AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST v u SI ATURE - � %(D � U,,_W 6 PROPERTY ADDRESS TO THE NEUIII ORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL: AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN T HE1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT WE REQUEST THAT THE ZONING AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOR THE 1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT BE RETAINED AS THEY CURRENTLY E)CIS t SIG V--77 _44aZ�7a- L) e PROPERTY ADDRESS SS5-22 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL: AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT WE REQUESTTHATTHE ZONING AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOR THE 1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT BE RETAINED AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST SIGNATU E PROPERTY ADDRESS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL: AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT WE REQUEST THAT THE ZONING AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOR THE 1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT BE RETAINED AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST SIGNATURE PROPERTY ADDRESS SS5-23 From: Christopher Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 8:27 AM To: Murillo, Jaime Cc: Tyler Wilson; Justin Johnston; Ryan McDaniel; Caitlin Smith; Brandon Linsday Subject: Re: Notice of Community Meeting- Residential Design Standards Gotcha. We're on board with the reduction in the appearance of 3rd floor covered areas ... and we're not surprised it's become an issue. Many bad examples out there. My initial thoughts are that this makes sense... forcing covered cabanas and roof structures back to the same setback as 3rd floor enclosed space. You might need to define other architectural details or eaves, some styles it looks nice to have a trellis or corbels or extended eaves so I would hate to be limited. I'm not sure a 50% coverage would be needed if the setbacks were enforced. I would have the same concerns here about how you calculate that with eaves, overhangs, dormers, etc... RM zones are tricky ... I expect a lot of that is coming from Marguerite in the village. I wonder if you could impose the same residential design criteria but keep the height limit? I think it could cause 2 unit or 1 unit structures to be different or out of character. I'm all for reducing the massing which I think the open space and 3rd floor setbacks and limitations could achieve but losing the extra 2 or 3 feet would hurt .... and I don't think it would significantly change the look of these taller units. If the 3rd floor massing is pushed back that's much more visually impactful than the max height. Just some quick thoughts. The cottage rules seem to make sense. Although from my experience there are way more challenges with the building code when trying to retrofit or remodel older homes. Increasing the valuation makes A LOT of sense, it's way too low. Looking forward to hearing how things go next week. Please do what you can to keep us in the loop and let me know if you think it would be helpful to have some of us come in and chat with you and Jim or Rosalyn. Thank you! Best Regards, Christopher Brandon, AIA President BRANDON ARCHITECTS 714.754.4040 151 Kalmus Dr. G-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.BrandonArchitects.com own SS5-24 From: Marie Zondler <mzondler@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 5:57 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: Meeting regarding Balboa building regulations Sorry am out of the country, I support all regulations that will help the density and lose of Balboa charm from disappearing. I support some type restrictions and also the need for the builders tearing down old properties and building these black trim white wood or stucco houses all over, enough is enough. Thank you, Marie Zondler. A property owner for over fifty years. Sent from my Whone SS5-25 1 —1 tI r' - 4AL ' P199 F ..xYc• - '�� S Residential Design Standards Proposed Code Amendments A. Third Floor Massing B. Cottage Preservation C. Single -Unit and Two -Unit Dwellings in RM Zoning District Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-27 2 �+rr■ a.rr.e •rte■ ..rw.. ii "Open" means any area open � on at least one side or to the sky Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-28 Current Regulations • 15 -ft stepbacks • Floor area limit (15-20% of buildable area) • No limits on p non -floor area L • No limits on .•rOTMIR Side View Front Setback I ear I 3 i SS5-29 Proposed Regulations • 15 -ft stepbacks I • Floor area limit • Covered 3rd floor deck areas subject P to stepbacks I L • Attics count as floor area Side View Front Setback gar 3 P L SS5-30 Current Floor1111 1=-.�11 �IIIIIIIil111N��!" f -=� i W - -- Regulations No limits on non -floor area ----- • limits on • - _ i■ ■IC 114 m! i6 di id i■ ilSr�■ 71! ■Y! .. R* R• R# �kA A Code All of - above, • 111 11111111�i • 1111111111111 Amendment Ard Covered 3 floor deck areas ��i� �=T - - •cks - "as Proposed .Y7 i�lW ■sdi laic! i�lr r■ •K count • •area� -------------------- ;ypman��.{uano-��c •on Nit Ow 93 Code Amendment A Attic Problem It■ .MM ii.■.....- m �■ 1.7 11.17.1 T1* �■• �r1AI �+� Y�uiil`[� � i 1 c tl� noIon iii^il 1 rlil�il'a,�j.rl,i' wviii %iiR—F-T Si�.iirn.aiiu�r• �lFr�� i■LJ.rlr7. rl...r�.!l R�11••!t• Woo PENA �uW, = A =7rrr.!� OffR21M 1�� ■■ R uu�.�L■i it ■vuun r vf■ rug �r�al � 1 111n.. ■ ■� ICI ]II■ L�� EM rl`y Code Amendment A Proposed Attic Fix M Vf■ rug �ra� iira■irvi .� �.: z,. is ':■_ u■:iuu�'li i■ni:::i�qmmlq��i9r Y �Mp No ■ Apply third floor and open volume standards to Balboa Island too. i l l l l l l U l l 1]] / a4Y�IRI I I IJ BAY-FRONTALLEY=N FAFAa h� Ill � w 7 w 7 6ALBOA'AVE LU dd - Q rCARROIl?BEEK tiY `\ Pv Z m ❑ a, 0 '0 r. _ ❑. wLU A COMMUNITY ;GENiER � ❑ C• ❑ a' O �. �� LU port Hur�O.r t` 0�4 PARK AVEFf F9 m. ~ �4a 6AY-FRONT ALLEYS FM UM HM FMT �/ BAY:FRONT.S 11 I f r i E t f" n r1 n rl Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-34 Support • Yes, overwhelming support Concerns • May not go far enough (i.e., dormers and2nd floor vaulted space) • Creation of nonconformities Community Recommendations • Enhanced enforcement of illegal 3rd floor enclosures • Code Enforcement mobile app Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-35 1 O A. Third Floor Massing B. Cottage Preservation C. Single -Unit and Two -Unit Dwellings in RM Zoning District Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-36 11 cwt ■ Nonconforming Parking Additions to existing homes limited to so% Building Code limitations Community Development Department - Planning Division Lf SS5-37 12 Increase allowed additions for nonconforming structures due to parking from to 50% Exempt from Building Code valuation thresholds that trigger full Building Code compliance (*not applicable in special floor hazard area) Current Regula Side View SS5-38 13 • 16' max single -story 9 No third floor • i4' max 2ndstory e No third floor decks • 2ndstory limited to rear half •Deed restriction Benefits -No additional parking needed -Increased floor area (50°0) -Building Code flex 16' max Side View Rear half of lot 24' max SS5-39 14 Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-40 1 Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-41 16 Support • Yes, overwhelming support • Incentive based Concerns • Must comply with FEMA regulations Community Recommendations • Waive permit fees for cottage projects • Ease building permit restrictions Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-42 17 A. Third Floor Massing B. Cottage Preservation C. Single -Unit and Two -Unit Dwellings in RM Zoning District Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-43 18 f V 11 ms [ 1� , r><EwPaftr 114 i' 141 r y 9`d� Y � � $ o w`` • `• 1 �� ; 5 SI axxFa ' FASNfON '� .54 a^t t u .. R f)O EORT � ISLE i BAL9OA ?$LAN❑ F �en v PACIFIC OCEAN " Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-44 1 » « � ` $ ® v ±}� ` ^�� f@ � : • °�� Q�� ^. f\\ �^�\, Ecj °� y !» � � 6 k � � s 3 O 9» 2 y f y \x 7 . +: » « / %44, $ .�� § Community Development Deparment - PlanningDg)on SS54 2 0 Problem Single -unit dwellings and duplexes built to multi -unit standards -Increased height -Less articulation �:►IOU. _ LI R -i & R-2 24' Envelope Flat RM 28' Envelope Flat i5' Stepbacks 29' Sloped 33' Sloped Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-47 22 Proposal -ApplyThird Floor Limits -Reduce Height 24, Flat i5' Stepbacks Community Development Department - Planning Division 2g' Sloped SS5-48 23 Support • No, significant concerns from property owners Concerns • 'Ship has sailed" • Unequal application of standards on same blocks • Unusual development patterns • Financial penalty • Taking • Not feasible to build 3 units in many cases • Creation of nonconformities Community Recommendations • Focus on neighborhoods instead of citywide • Apply 3rd floor stepbacks but not lower height Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-49 2 4 a MAMR YAM; • Receive Council direction • Public Hearings: -Planning Commission: October -City Council: November • Cottage Preservation requires LCP Amendment and Coastal Commission approval Community Development Department - Planning Division SS5-5o 2 5 For additional information: Jaime Murillo, AICP Principal Planner 949-644-3209 jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov Al I� tIALii ti r