The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 - Residentail Lot Merger Code Amendment CA2012-007 - PA2012-102CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949)644 -3235 To: Planning Commission From: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager Date: May 2, 2013 Re: May 9, 2013 Discussion Item — Lot Mergers Background On January 17, 2013, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Code Amendment CA2012 -007 to the City Council. This amendment would modify the residential development standards so that the merger /reconfiguration of two or more lots would not result in an increase in the maximum amount of floor area that could have otherwise been developed prior to the merger /reconfiguration. On February 12, 2013, the Council held a public hearing on the amendment but did not take action. Instead, the Council requested the issue be discussed at a future Council Study Session so that direction could be provided to staff. The Council Study Session was held on April 9, 2013, but the Council did not have adequate time for discussion and opted to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. Discussion The Commission is requested to explore this issue further and provide direction to staff and the City Council. To facilitate this discussion of lot mergers, staff will present the following topics: 1. Defining the issue (is there a problem ?) 2. Review of current standards 3. Discussion of potential alternative approaches 4. Should the merger of substandard lots be exempt? 5. Should any changes be limited to older areas or City -wide? 1 Topic 1 — Defining the Issue When residential lots are merged, or otherwise reconfigured, setback areas are eliminated resulting in a larger buildable area and potentially larger dwellings. The potential increase in the buildable area and resulting allowable floor area varies with each project; however, the merger of two lots with typical dimension /setback configurations result in an 8.33 percent increase in floor area over that which would otherwise occur if the two lots were developed individually. Since 2008, the City has received 15 lot merger applications, an average of three annually. Topic 2 — Review of Current Standards The General Plan Land Use Element contains polices that call for compatibility with neighborhood development and the residential design guidelines and /or standards to avoid significant changes in scale and character. These policies are implemented through Zoning Code development standards and design criteria, including floor area limits, progressive side setbacks, third floor limitations, open air volume space, and design criteria. Topic 3 - Discussion of Potential Alternative Approaches Maximum Lot Size. In 2008, the City of Manhattan Beach adopted a maximum lot size standard for that city's residential zoning districts. This was one of a series of amendments adopted to address the issue of "mansionization." The maximum lot sizes restrict the enlargement of sites beyond two typical -sized parcels for a given area. Protect Size & Width. Prohibit lot mergers that deviate significantly with the predominate lot size and width in the block. For example, prohibit a lot merger that would result in a lot that has an area or width that is greater than that of eighty (80) percent or more of lots the same block street frontage, inclusive of the subject lots. The lot merger .1d be aerromed beoma. leas than 60% (67%) of the tots In this block have smaller areas and widths. $l2af _ T._._._._._._._._ ._._._._._i_._._._._i_._._._._i I t I 1 ' 1 i I 1 1 i 1 �._._. _._. _t_.1. _._J._._._ ...... ._._. ...... ... _._._._.... _._._._.t a _'_r_._ _ _.............. _ i ! i 8111 i I , . i._. _._L .__. i_.I. ._._.:._. ..._._._t_._._.- srreet The lot merger would not be permitted because more than 60% (100 %) of the Iota in this block have smelter areas and width.. Figure 1 K FAR Caps. The Code Amendment currently under consideration (CA2012 -007) would restrict the maximum floor area limit of a lot or lots reconfigured by a lot merger, lot line adjustment, or parcel map if the area of the largest of the lots involved is increased by more than fifty percent (50 %). The maximum floor area of the lots involved in the reconfiguration shall not exceed the aggregate floor area permitted on the lots as they existed prior to the merger or reconfiguration. In 2004, the City of Del Mar considered, but did not adopt, removing the "incentives" for lot mergers by calculating the allowable floor area ratio only on the net lot area of the single largest of the properties that were merged. Also at that time, the City of Del Mar considered, but did not adopt, establishing floor area caps for each residential zoning district. This approach would have created upper limit for the size of a structure, regardless of the size of the lot. The cap would have been on sliding scale based on the typical size of other structures in the surrounding area. Increased Setbacks. Increasing the depth of required side setbacks would reduce the buildable area and maximum floor area allowed. Currently, most of the City's residential zoning districts require a minimum side setback of 3 feet for lots 40- feet -wide or less and 4 feet for lots more than 40- feet -wide. Table 1 shows how increasing the required side setbacks would reduce the buildable area and maximum allowable floor area. Table 1 2 Lots 2 Lots 2 Lots 2 Lots Developed Merged Merged Merged Individually with 4 -ft Increase with 5 -ft Increase With 6 -ft Increase with Setbacks Setbacks Setbacks setbacks Buildable 4,464 4,836 8'33% 4,650 4'17% 4,464 0.00% Floor 6,696 7,254 6,975 6,696 Note: Based on two (2) 30 -ft x 118 -ft lots (3540 sf each) with 20 -ft front setback, 3 -ft side setbacks, and 5 -ft rear setback and a 1.5 Floor Area Limit. Site Development Review. Requiring site development review for residential development on a lot that was subject to a lot merger would allow neighborhood compatibility issues to be addressed on a project by project basis. It would provide a vehicle to establish conditions to insure neighborhood compatibility, such as further limits on floor area, increased setbacks, open space requirements, or building placement. The site development review requirement could be limited to lot mergers that exceed a specified lot area or lot width increase threshold. Topic 4 - Should the Merger of Substandard Lots be Exempt? Occasionally, the City receives a lot merger application involving full -sized lots. However, most applications involve the merger of lots that do not meet the minimum lot area or width. Should such applications be exempted from any new restrictions in order to promote lots that are more conforming, even if they deviate from the existing neighborhood lot pattern? 191 Topic 5 - Should any Changes be Limited to Older Areas or City -wide? As currently proposed, Code Amendment CA2012 -007 would apply only to properties located in the R -1, R -BI, and R -2 Zoning Districts of Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Corona del Mar, Lido Isle, and West Newport. Should this or any other proposed lot merger regulation apply only to older areas or City -wide? 11 9 Gersho"';8dgham House, reatral Mass., about 1750 > �rb.ua �1'Pkaty pip smal. h IM h wro aNPeake regime otl about 320 ^arch WBer. about 2p�a squa a IJ,: .ale hoUw Staff Presentation Item No. 2a Residential Lot Merger Cod PA2012 -102 [`'tyneOg or] EXC%alms against in New7{ouse and thinks that it is too dg, and.. too fig& Glary of Ebenezer Parkman, a minister In Massachusetts, 1751 Res-lac Vlprapi 9 Gersho"';8dgham House, reatral Mass., about 1750 > �rb.ua �1'Pkaty pip smal. h IM h wro aNPeake regime otl about 320 ^arch WBer. about 2p�a squa a IJ,: .ale hoUw Staff Presentation Item No. 2a Residential Lot Merger Cod PA2012 -102 [`'tyneOg or] EXC%alms against in New7{ouse and thinks that it is too dg, and.. too fig& Glary of Ebenezer Parkman, a minister In Massachusetts, 1751 •l• Defining the issue �. Current standards 3. Potential approaches 4. Merger of substandard lots — Exempt? 5. Where (older areas or City- wide)? Community Development Department - Planning Division z 1 0 Merging lots reduces setback area, increases potential floor area (8 %) 3 -6 lot merger applications per year over the past five years (total of 15 City -wide) What is the issue? Larger lots? Larger houses? Both? Community Development Department - Planning Division . d, e x • � "r liG00.P \I' nY>ve PM wIftm WIMM ` ,i Pa' Tumn aD aJ Are Perk G} n R < ) Costa Mesa C. W IM 51 EW w '� c � O m� F � P✓li' � Saiellde 0 U p a Mnv, eeRer R $ xlsmro�re cealr Qd ` IaM9 X f. H p ?aA, PaY �MarMre WM�aOr h'e ,ypr Heb Ark � � Ps'A ya Frr vrC%F,, eP F Wexl<un PMZn J dfla W", Haapddl" — ^y t $ $'dy Bsrolm4q cemc \w£' 8 amA Cnp Nergm Peek Pecih Cy/,� Q a Nxmrut O c Newport ♦ _ P° �O uarewah t o FP rvermnd Beach <nP� o,✓ v.n IYflM Fni4 F� �e ® y Na l^b 'r^�'rry We ✓coe:I HeM �� fM/c _ .,irvl '-!'p (.nOn lafaP4 �y�. NMgm Bee<b ♦ L tt kern ryC b New a � NnnuePert iPo�fi< ik N/ K6'6 Ie anO eq r.lr Wv NBa Pn c env !• �[a Bhp BnrMa ♦ Sdr �na9�nn Hda Ad fsfanQ eaPOn FMd i °mk Fre IsIaM P✓M WBabva gb,C � 0 f fiay� 4 • xwnla Pn4 la Pnk EBnI Ivp fil Carwae pN 1.1✓ rrme View P✓h ,areee eencn O Community Development Department - Planning Division q nt Meraer Examples BALBOA PENINSULA N551730E 2 7.5 g11C81 kNG HOUSE WT;38 'l611]OCE�NFRONT v 22.5' 2 ? g18. N n EfOSjifi HOl16E O i QN MOOOCEANEFONT 3.2 W 1500' 1 N55 1730 E O 26TH N55'1,-30 'E 1 STREET J .Q O 3 9' CHINA COVE E ST�r y� y � E Iwo Community Development Department - Planning Division 3 LA L 0 L L ■ 0 611: DOVER SHORES IRVINE TERRACE ! 9 EXISTING HOUSE n N64.40 !' \ _ tN46 N46 5 ' 48 W 3895 Of O _ ,4t• R�215 00' o BASIS OF ° BED "' X155 2317,. « N46'52'48'W .N, `y I W3fl o EMSTI NOOSE * 99.42' M +I 2 g 1:13 GAIAXV DRIVE ty S. p . 6• i$ x Io i it H I O m 7Q 24'pp'W 190.00 r0 PARCEL 7 GROS L4S ACRES W EXISTING ) a `j„' N : RESIDENCE I Y m NET 045 ACRES yam , O I ^ 2$ GRGSS'8597SO. Fr I -$ N EXISTING o � - � RESIDENCE i� IQ Z EXISTING NOOSE �5 2 r N I M r,a GAtnxr DRNS ° PARM I v W4 * I M%G "OUSE PAUL N46'54'25'W 198.11' vol LICENSER Community Development Department - Planning Division N 0 BALBOA PENINSULA I� NE 0 EXISTING HOUSE N5r4F30•E 80.00• - TO BR RCMOVRO m I 0i N52'46'30'E F 80.00' Y 1 32ND STREET y _E� E %SSING NOUS PAUL D CF LICENSE R I CORONA HIGHLANDS AOII.WZA TERRACE i� 69 r� Z- O� MOW � 9 S ENOP09R RORRE PARCEL 2 ass l4'fi^ ;.CT .:Q I ;OT :2 e� � e PARCEL I 6' R"- '� `= 0.137 AC. 6' 8�'� 0.070 AC. N NM.Y.O "E N � X M {T.0 "E 15.00' N M.TIW'E ISObi' 1 h" S' -2 1- Community Development Department - Planning Division 7 Lot Size or House Size? Manhattan Beach r Community Development Department - Planning Division 8 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 iii M rim n r Bal. Island CdM e 1 3840 M Bal. Peninsula _ Post - Merger Increase Pre -meger Lot 2 Floor Area Pre - merger Lot 1 Floor Area Community Development Department - Planning Division w •l• General Plan Policies (2006) Zoning Code (2010) Community Development Department - Planning Division iG] :L1.neral Pi;; 0011CIF SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED AND TWO -UNIT NEIGHBORHOODS LU 5.1 .5 Character and Quality of tiin le- Family Residential Dwellings Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following prir -Iciples: Artictiilation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the aooeamnce of "box -like" buildinLxs Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing I elevations Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places Entries and Windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood Orientation to desirable sunlight and views (YV 2.1) Community Development Department - Planning Division ON :L1.neral Pi;; 0011CIF LU 5.1.7 Renovation and Replacement of Existing Residential Units Require that residential units tlhat are renovated and rebuult in existing single - family neighborhoods by Policv 5.1.5 above Consider the appropriateness of establisliing single - family residential design guidelines and /or standards and review procedures for neighborlioods impacted by significant clianges uh building scale and character_ (IV 2.1, 8.2) Community Development Department - Planning Division 0 w coning .out Residential Deu4 FloorArea Limits Side setbacks based on lot width (3 ft. or 4 ft) Third Floor Limitations 15% of Buildable Area Stepback Open Air Volume Space 15% of Buildable Area Design Criteria Articulated walls Upper floor stepbacks /partial indentations Community Development Department - Planning Division 13 ,E°vEt'kr x Topic 3. Potential Max. Lot Size Regulate Lots Protect Size & Width Problem? FAR Caps Regulate Increase Houses Setbacks Site Dev. Review Community Development Department - Planning Division zq Potential Approaches > o -rq: i rnaP�� Max. Lot Size Regulate Lots Protect Size & Width Problem? FAR Caps Regulate Increase Houses Setbacks Site Dev. Review Community Development Department - Planning Division 15 Maximum Lot Size lb TABLE 2 -2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS da Development R -a R -1 - R -1 - R -1 - Additional Feature 6,000 7,200 10,000 Requirements Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions re aired for each NEWLY CREATED Jot. Lot Area ( 1 (2) Corner lot 87,120 sq. 6,000 sq- 6,000 sq. 7,200 sq. 101.000 sq- ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Interior lot 87,120 sq. 5,000 sq. 6,000 sq. 7,2130 sq. 10000 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Lot Width C;omar lot 175 ft an ft din ft 7n ft qn ft Community Development Department - Planning Division 16 Manhattan Example PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA DISTRICTS I AND 11 Area District I krea district II rdditional Rs RM RH is RM RH egulation Lot Dimensions 'rea sq. (A)(6)(C) t. Vnimum 7,500 500 500 600 600 600 kaximum I 15 000 15,000 15 000 110,800 110,800 10 800 Width (ft.) Community Development Department - Planning Division 17 Potential Approaches > o -rq: i rnaP�� Max. Lot Size Regulate Lots Protect Size & Width Problem? FAR Caps Regulate Increase Houses Setbacks Site Dev. Review Community Development Department - Planning Division s8 P rntP ct S i zP. & W i e Deviations from existing lot pattern Prohibit if merged lot area /width would be greater than a set percent (e.g., 80 %) or more of lots on the same block frontage Community Development Department - Planning Division 19 N The lot merger would be permitted because less than 80% (67 %) of the lots in this block have smaller areas and widths. Street .r , ... .... ..... ._._._._._._:_._ ._..._._._,_._._._._,---------- I I I 1 I I I I I 1 i I I I i i i i i i I i I i I i i i i i i I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I Street The lot merger would not be permitted because more than 80% (100 %) of the lots in this block have smaller areas and widths. Community Development Department - Planning Division N N .ze I i I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 . _ Alley _ _ .................... ii i- i 1 i i i I i i i i 1 1 i i i i i i i 1 i i i I I I i i i i i i I i i I I L ...... ._._._ 1_. Street The lot merger would not be permitted because more than 80% (100 %) of the lots in this block have smaller areas and widths. Community Development Department - Planning Division N N .ze Potential Approaches > o -rq: i rnaP�� Max. Lot Size Regulate Lots Protect Size & Width Problem? FAR Caps Regulate Increase Houses Setbacks Site Dev. Review Community Development Department - Planning Division 21 1 Code Amendment CA2012 -007 Planning Commission recommendation When largest lot increases by more than 50% Floor area cannot exceed that prior to merger R -1, R -BI, and R -2 Zoning Districts West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar Community Development Department - Planning Division 22 FAR Caps 4D City of Del Mar FAR Cap (Not Adopted) Limits FAR to largest of lots merged Upper FAR limit Community Development Department - Planning Division 23 Problem? Regulate Lots Max. Lot Size Protect Size & Width FAR Caps Reg Increase Houses Setbacks 'Site Dev. Review Community Development Department - Planning Division 24 4 -ft. side setback = 8.33% increase 5 -ft. side setback = 4.17% increase 6 -ft. side setback = 0.00% increase Community Development Department - Planning Division 25 Potential Approaches > o -rq: i rnaP�� Max. Lot Size Regulate Lots Protect Size & Width Problem? FAR Caps Regulate Increase Houses Setbacks Site Dev. Review Community Development Department - Planning Division 26 Site Development Review Address compatibility on a project by project basis Conditions of approval Floor area limits Open space requirements Articulation Increased setbacks Building placement Community Development Department - Planning Division 27 1110 [IL! _ r � 31ots Lots of the original I merged subdivision I 1.3 X configuration min. lot size I � 2 lots merged meets 4 lots merged min. lot 2X min. lot size size Community Development Department - Planning Division 0 • E 14. Community Development Department - Planning Division 29 • For more information contact: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager 949 - 644 -3235 PAlford @newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov