HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - RESIDENTIAL LOT MERGERS DISCUSSION - PA2012-102Memorandum
CITY 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 30, 2013
Re: June 6, 2013, Meeting — Discussion Item on Residential Lot Mergers (PA2012 -102)
Background
Code Amendment CA2012 -007 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. The
Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration.
On May 9, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a discussion on residential lot mergers to
explore this issue further and provide direction to staff. Following extensive discussion, the
Planning Commission directed staff to evaluate the following approaches or issues:
1. Revise the required findings to approve a lot merger:
a. Reconsider subjective language regarding "excessively large lots" and
"surrounding development"
b. Distinguish between impacts to adjacent lots and the neighborhood
c. Consider impacts to adjacent lots over those to the neighborhood and
community
2. Establish side setbacks proportional to lot width, up to 5 -feet
3. Maintain pre- merger floor area limits
4. Avoid making existing development non - conforming
5. Exempt merging substandard lots
1
6. Apply City -wide, as practical
7. Impacts of merging more than 2 lots.
Discussion
To facilitate discussion of lot mergers, staff prepared examples of possible approaches using the
direction provided by the Planning Commission. These are not presented as recommended
actions or standards; however, they are intended to provide the Planning Commission with
examples that could be explored further.
Required Findings
To approve a lot merger, Section 19.68.030 (H) of the Subdivision Code requires a finding that
"the lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not
create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development."
To address the Planning Commission's concern about the subjective nature of this finding,
staff suggests adding "considerations" to guide the review authority as to the type of lot
mergers the City is attempting to avoid. The example below shows how Finding No. 5 could
be revised:
Example
5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the swreupG�q pattern of development in the vicinity
and will result in a lot width, depth, or orientation, or
development site that is not compatible with the sHR:Oe4n4iR Joining and adjacent
development. In making this finding, the review authority may consider the following:
a. Whether the merged lots would sjgnificantly deviate from the development pattern of
adjoining and adjacent lots in a manner that would result in a material detriment to the
use and enioyment of other properties;
b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or general orientation of
other lots in the vicinity.
C. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum
lot width and area standards for the Zoning District.
This example also uses Zoning Code terms of "adjoining" and "adjacent" to make distinctions
between the proximity of the surrounding development. "Adjoining" is defined as "contiguous to,
having district boundaries or lot lines in common;" while "adjacent" is defined as the condition of
being near to, or close to, but not having a common boundary or dividing line." "Vicinity" is not
defined in the Zoning Code, so the common meaning of the term is used, which is synonymous
with "neighborhood."
`a
Increased Setbacks
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. Side setbacks could be
increased by making them proportional to the lot width. However, plan checking on irregularly -
shaped lots would be problematic because calculating the lot width is difficult.
Example 1
For lots wider than 50 feet, each side setback area shall have a width equal to ten (10) percent
of the lot width (rounded to the nearest inch).
i
a
Example 2 requires side setbacks to have a total combined width of 20 percent with no side
setback less than 4 feet. A maximum setback (e.g., 10 feet) can also be established, if desired.
Varied side setbacks allow more design options and articulation of side elevations. It would
also further complicate the plan check review process, which could result in increased staff time
to complete plan checks.
Example 2
For lots wider than 50 feet, side setback areas shall have a total combined width equal to twenty
(20) percent of the lot width (rounded to the nearest inch); no side setback shall be less than four
(4) feet. Setbacks may be varied along the length of the structure.
191
...........................
Min. 6 ft Min. 6 ft
' 60 ft
Min. 4 It Min. 8 ft
...........................
Floor Area Limits
Increasing the side setbacks would reduce the buildable area and maximum floor area allowed,
as shown inTable 1. .
Table 1
ADD TITLE
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 (3,540 sf. each) with 20 -ft front setback, 3 -ft side
setbacks, and 5 -ft rear setback and a 1.5 Floor Area Limit.
In the case of the merger of three lots, increasing the setback to 10 percent or 9 feet for each side
would off -set the loss of the interior setback areas. See Table 2 below.
C!
Minimizing Non - conformities
Modifying the development standard would create several existing structures nonconforming. To
avoid this, the Zoning Code could be amended to apply the modified standards to lots created
after the effective date of the amendment. This would create two setback standards based on the
date the lot was created. This would further complicate the plan check review process, which
could result in increased staff time to complete plan checks. There is also an equity issue where
abutting lots could have two different setback standards.
Exempting Substandard Lots
Increasing the width of required side setbacks would reduce the buildable area and maximum
floor area allowed. However, this could be a disincentive for the merger of substandard lots that
would result in conforming or greater conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for
the Zoning District. To avoid this, the wider side setback could only be required for lots that are
wider than the minimum lot width, which in most cases are 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for
corner lots.
City -wide Application
The amendment, as currently proposed, is intended to apply 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.
The R -1 — 6,000 Zoning District (Mariner's, Dover Shores, Eastbluff, Harbor View, Shorecliffs,
Cameo Shores, Cameo Highlands, and other communities) already has minimum 6 -foot side
setbacks. However, a wider side setback based on lot width for lots wider than the minimum lot
width could be established. This could also be established for the R -1 — 7,200 Zoning District (5-
foot minimum side setbacks) and the R -1 — 10,000 Zoning District (10 -foot minimum side
setbacks). However, development in these zones is regulated by lot coverage, not by a floor area
ratio. Increasing the side setback requirement would not necessarily reduce the amount of floor
area that could be developed. Also, approximately 65 percent of the land designated for single -
unit and two -unit development is located in Planned Community (PC) Districts, which have a
61
Table 2
ADD TITLE
3 Lots
3 Lots
3 Lots
Developed
Merged
Individually
Individually
with94 - -ft
Increase
Increase
with
Setbacks
Setbacks
setbacks
Buildable
6,696
7,626
°
13'9 /0
6,696
°
0.0 /o
Floor
10,044
11,439
10,044
Note: Based on three (3) 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.
Minimizing Non - conformities
Modifying the development standard would create several existing structures nonconforming. To
avoid this, the Zoning Code could be amended to apply the modified standards to lots created
after the effective date of the amendment. This would create two setback standards based on the
date the lot was created. This would further complicate the plan check review process, which
could result in increased staff time to complete plan checks. There is also an equity issue where
abutting lots could have two different setback standards.
Exempting Substandard Lots
Increasing the width of required side setbacks would reduce the buildable area and maximum
floor area allowed. However, this could be a disincentive for the merger of substandard lots that
would result in conforming or greater conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for
the Zoning District. To avoid this, the wider side setback could only be required for lots that are
wider than the minimum lot width, which in most cases are 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for
corner lots.
City -wide Application
The amendment, as currently proposed, is intended to apply 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.
The R -1 — 6,000 Zoning District (Mariner's, Dover Shores, Eastbluff, Harbor View, Shorecliffs,
Cameo Shores, Cameo Highlands, and other communities) already has minimum 6 -foot side
setbacks. However, a wider side setback based on lot width for lots wider than the minimum lot
width could be established. This could also be established for the R -1 — 7,200 Zoning District (5-
foot minimum side setbacks) and the R -1 — 10,000 Zoning District (10 -foot minimum side
setbacks). However, development in these zones is regulated by lot coverage, not by a floor area
ratio. Increasing the side setback requirement would not necessarily reduce the amount of floor
area that could be developed. Also, approximately 65 percent of the land designated for single -
unit and two -unit development is located in Planned Community (PC) Districts, which have a
61
variety of side setback requirements and development is generally regulated by lot coverage.
Therefore, a one -size fits all solution is not apparent.
Revising the required findings for lot mergers is one option that would be applied City -wide. The
revised finings would have to be made in order to approve all future lot mergers, regardless of the
zoning district.
Conclusion
City staff has experienced significant challenges in developing a solution to potential compatibility
concerns associated with lot mergers. Some of the challenges are stated below:
1. Variables such as lot size, width, area, configuration, and orientation, make defining
a standard difficult.
2. Common zoning information (i.e., setbacks and floor area limits) would involve
investigating the each lot's subdivision history, which would make zoning regulations
less transparent and create more uncertainty to property owners.
3. Potential inequity as an older lot will be developed with a larger home and closer to
the property than an identical neighboring lot that was created later.
The City has processed only 15 lot merger applications since 2008 (an average of three per year).
Given small number of applications, this topic could best be addressed on a case by case basis.
Potential actions for the Planning Commission to consider include, but are not limited to:
1. Determine that existing policies and regulations pertaining to lot mergers are
adequate and direct staff to report the Planning Commission's recommendation to
the City Council along with a summary of the Planning Commission's extensive
review and discussion; or
2. Direct staff to draft revised required findings for lot mergers to provide clearer
direction to decision makers; and /or
3. Direct staff to draft revised setbacks and /or other development standards to address
compatibility concerns associated with lot mergers.
If No. 2 and /or No. 3 are directed, staff will return with draft language for consideration at a future
meeting.
[y
Burns, Marlene
From: Alford, Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:48 AM
To: Burns, Marlene
Subject: FW: Lot Merger Language
From: Larry Tucker [mailto:Tucker @GTPCenters.coml
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Alford, Patrick
Cc: Wisneski, Brenda; Mulvihill, Leonie
Subject: Lot Merger Language
Patrick,
I like the approach you have taken to Lot Merger Finding No. 5, but would tweak the language as follows:
"5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development nearby and will not result in a lot width,
depth or orientation, or development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this finding, the review
authority may consider the following:
a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate from the pattern of development of
nearby lots in a manner that would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and enjoyment of other
properties;
b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or general orientation of nearby lots; or
c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum lot width and
area standards for the Zoning District."
I would hope we accomplish a few things by replacing Finding No. 5 with the above language:
1. Actual development of merged lots should not be an issue in a lot merger decision since the development of the
lots is not really before the decision - makers; rather it is the potential for merged lots to be developed in a
fashion that is incompatible with nearby lots that should be the focus. One often does not know how lots that
are proposed to be merged will be developed, so the Section should address lot mergers and not their
development. Therefore language that compares merged lots with "surrounding adjoining or adjacent
development' is comparing apples (a lot merger with no development defined) with oranges (what has been
developed nearby). The Ocean Blvd. merger decision focused on the house being contemplated by the owner,
even though technically that house was not before the Commission. The Commission even went so far as to
tweak the details of the house, generating a no vote from the two members who did not consider the house in
reaching their decision: The Chairman (who focused on the incompatibility of the lot with its surrounds) and
yours truly (who felt the findings could be made).
2. Using the word "nearby" gives flexibility to what the merged lot is compared to. It can be as narrow or as
expansive as decision - makers decide based upon the facts that are presented. The key word "surrounding" used
in the existing code sounds like what encircles the merged lots, but that can be too narrow and could lead to a
circumstance where lots in blocks where there has been no merger remain as such, whereas lots in the next
block where there have been mergers are treated differently due to the fortuity of having had a lot merger in
that block. The word "adjoining', even though defined in the code, likewise sounds too narrow.
3. 1 substituted the word "unreasonable" for the word "material' since having a big house come in next to an
adjacent home could be considered a material detriment, but not necessarily unreasonable.
Look forward to our discussion on Thursday!
Larry
Reside
Vlprnpi
German' Bngharn House,
central Mau., about 7750
tNelmpne mt raes Wed In small rr
h4rBerai:n/ 1r aee
hom 2.30a square ft9rh�l�_huuse
(IWy neighbor]
Exclaims against
my
New House and
thinks that it is too
bg,
and.. too bgh.
Diary of Ebenezer Parkrnan.
I minister in Massachusetts, 1751
u >.opt,
,CgGlFp 0.N P
�jiannin
Dimin it
1.
2.
3.
5.
Al
Revise required findings
Proportional setbacks
Maintain pre- merger floor area limits
Avoid creating nonconformities
Exempt substandard lot mergers
City -wide application
Mergers of more than 2 lots
Community Development Department - Planning Division
z
Mr.
:4 •
•
Section 19.68.030 (H):
n
5. The lots as
merged
will
be consistent
with
the
surrounding
pattern
of
development
and
will
not create an excessively large lot that is not
compatible with the surrounding development.
Community Development Department - Planning Division
I V
5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development
in the vicinity and will result in a lot width, depth, or orientation, or
development site that is not compatible with the adjoining and adjacent
development. In making this finding, the review authority may consider
the following:
a. Whether the merged lots would significantly deviate from the
development pattern of adjoining and adjacent lots in a manner
that would result in a material detriment to the use and enjoyment
of other properties;
b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or
general orientation of other lots in the vicinity.
c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater
conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the
Zoning District.
Community Development Department- Planning Division Zr
I V
5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development
in the vicinity and will result in a lot width, depth, or orientation, or
development site that is not compatible with the adjoining and adjacent
development. In making this finding, the review authority may consider
the following:
a. Whether the merged lots would significantly deviate from the
development pattern of adjoining and adjacent lots in a manner
that would result in a material detriment to the use and enjoyment
of other properties;
b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or
general orientation of other lots in the vicinity.
c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater
conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the
Zoning District.
Community Development Department - Planning Division
.,
r
5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development
nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or
development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this
finding, the review authority may consider the following:
a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate
from the pattern of development of nearby lots in a manner that
would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and
enjoyment of other properties;
b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or
general orientation of nearby lots; or
c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater
conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the
Zoning District.
Community Development Department- Planning Division 6
.,
r
5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the pattern of development
nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or
development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. In making this
finding, the review authority may consider the following:
a. Whether development of the merged lots could significantly deviate
from the pattern of development of nearby lots in a manner that
would result in an unreasonable detriment to the use and
enjoyment of other properties;
b. Whether the merged lots would be consistent with the character or
general orientation of lots; or
c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater
conformity with the minimum lot width and area standards for the
Zoning District.
Community Development Department - Planning Division
10 %or6ft
FIXED
-- -- -- * - -- -- -- -- -- - -- ---
-;
..............................
i
soft
10% or 6 ft
i
:............................. I
!- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- . -. -.i
VARIED
Community Development Department - Planning Division
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
*To- T W,
Bal. Island
:T.71
40
CdM Bal.
Peninsula
_�1I
Post - Merger Increase
Pre -meger Lot 2 Floor
Area
Pre - merger Lot 1 Floor
Area
Community Development Department - Planning Division
9
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
10
nor
Area
Limits
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
10
ytvnica i La
BALBOA PENINSULA
iI1-
t
N57'4B'00'E 80.00'
RPSR)BNCB Ire
TO BE REMOVED �m
PARCEL 1
-i
N52Y6'00'E 911.00' 1
O 'W
rr1 32ND STREET
DZ
-n
M
I
CORONA HIGHLANDS
O' 169
6• �. saDnwc
Li
�` ,� 91 r
� of
C L
N 4'7 -WI 150.51'
35.00
N 05'47 W E 100.00 _
O 8 8
u'
a
m1°�°
14'-6'
PARCEL2
gi=
L0l" :70
� ;.0' 12
�+
PARCELI
6'
�`
0.137 AC.
6' ai
0.070 AC.
NNO'1p "E
N
05.a0'
N 59.4r W'E
1"'
most. swndc
U :_
5' 2'
._
O
Community Development Department - Planning Division
is
m4-1 Lonina
•
• i7"1:
is
' Uppef, Newpot !
,Bay Estates
�. trsth#ff
i.
M,a(riner's/
,,yD <Irmo
Jer Sores
PACIFIC OCEAN
Newport ,,,���111��� 0 3,498 3,931
Be h • e
GIs Feel
�A
6r .G\ 4110 �1
Har
\View
^ g
�- Cameo/
Shorediffs
MKNIm0�EUaynnwatle MM MO MKmaM�o esvOe lMeavery WPM MIa �
c�e.i4e4.m.....1M aira�men e..a.M u.+mnxe..m
m.��4. nmN.m'm a nv�.+am nam a rn.eey m .m a.u:
MgOry; 30�AlIpMlei ganMYq Eap I�uOR'.'./.'.u[b0eeYCan wA, '♦S
Community Development Department - Planning Division
r
ER
12
�jL ustr
Lot Cow
is
Bo%ita
gCary
yon
One Fora Road.
�.�► >.i� .1•,
igCanyon Harbor Vi
•.> W:
Ilk ` [[[ Spyglas p
I
�.,
Nevfport
PACIFIC OCEAN
y Coiast
MKNIm.� Euaynnwatle MM Mf [eKmaM�o eswe iM ¢avery W �M dla
Newport -e 0 3,49fi 6931 c�a.ieaa m...e. m. c ^ra trepan Eeacn ene nsamrr,Ka,m
Bebl'll �- �aimCU�i rtsmwaM erounmvK✓1MRVnv miming�a emmsus
�...o.+' GIS Owt M.s.n: zoosx,i Nao: wm+�nar EKein.yrc..w.Ky.••nu cam avm�n �*•
Community Development Department - Planning Division
r�
i
ll rA ru.
13
■ Revised Findings
Subjective, uncertainty for property owners
Case by case
Revised Development Standards
Variations in lot size, width, area, and orientation
Floor area limits v. lot coverage areas
Lack of common standards, more uncertainty
Community Development Department - Planning Division
i4
1
For more information contact:
Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
949 - 644 -3235
PAlford @newportbeachca.gov
www. newportbeachca.gov