HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190910_CC_Staff_Report_Study_SessionQ
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 WFZONINGANDBUILDINGS-hANDARDS FOR THE 1000REQ.UEST THAT THE
BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT RET -AINED AS THEY CURRENTLY
Ad
AL)IGNATJURI
P/
Lll
D 0ROr.,
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
uSIATURE
D U,,_W 6
PROPERTY ADDRESS
TO THE NEUIII ORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL:
AS PROPERTY OWNERS IN T HE1800 BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT WEREQUESTTHATTHEZONINGANDBUILDINGSTANDARDSFORTHE1800
BLOCK OF WEST OCEAN FRONT BE RETAINED AS THEY CURRENTLYE)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.erte ..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 ArdCovered3 floor deck areas i
T
cks
asProposed 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......- m1.7 11.17.1 T1* • r1AI
Y uiil`[ i1c tl noIoniii^il
1 rlil il'a,j.rl,
i' wviii
iiR—F-TSi.iirn.aiiu r•
lFr i LJ.rlr7. rl...r.!l R 11••!t•
Woo
PENA
uW, = A =7rrr.!
OffR21M 1 Ruu.L i itvuunr
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. _ . wLUA
COMMUNITY ;GENiER
C•
a' O .
LU
port Hur O.r t` 0
4 PARK
AVEFf F9
m. ~
4a 6AY-FRONT ALLEYS
FM UM HM FMTBAY:FRONT.S
11IfriEtf" 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 $
ow`` • `•
1
5
SI axxFa '
FASNfON ' .54 a^
t
t u .. R f)OEORT
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 3O
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