HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Residential Lot Mergers�EW�Rr CITY OF
°� e= NEWPORT BEACH
C9C /Fp0.N`P City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 17
July 23, 2013
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Community Development Department
Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director
949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager
APPROVED: J�,n O.
r1
TITLE: Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations on
Residential Lot Mergers
ABSTRACT:
The Planning Commission has submitted a memorandum to the City Council reporting
their findings and recommendations concerning residential lot mergers.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Remove Zoning Code Amendment CA2012 -007 from Calendar; and
2. Direct staff to process an amendment to Title 19 (Subdivisions) to revise the
findings required to approve lot mergers.
DISCUSSION:
Background
On August 14, 2012, the City Council initiated an amendment of the Zoning Code and the
Subdivision Code that may involve modifying residential development standards so that the
merger of two or more lots results in no net increase in the buildable area.
On January 17, 2013, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Code
Amendment CA2012 -007 to the City Council with modifications.
On February 12, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing on the amendment but did not
take action. Instead, the City Council requested the issue be discussed at a future City
Council Study Session so that direction could be provided to staff. The City Council Study
Session was held on April 9, 2013, and the City Council referred the matter back to the
Planning Commission for additional analysis and recommendation.
1
Residential Lot Mergers
July 23, 2013
Page 2
On May 9, June 6, and June 20, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted discussions
on residential lot mergers and voted (4 -1) to send their findings and recommendations
to the City Council. The attached memorandum (Attachment CC -1) reports the
Planning Commission's findings and recommendations to the City Council.
Analysis
The Planning Commission discussed at length the question of increasing side setbacks,
restricting the floor area, and modifications to other development standards on newly
merged lots. In conjunction with this discussion, the Commission reviewed the history of
recent lot mergers citywide, and the Commission determined that residential lot mergers
are not significantly affecting the quality and character of the City as a whole. They
concluded that adopting more restrictive development regulations would create
inequities over time; therefore, they do not recommend amending the Zoning Code
regulations.
The Planning Commission also concluded that the merits of an individual lot merger
application should be considered independently of the future development on the
merged lot. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
revise Finding No. 5 of Section 19.68.030 (H) of the Subdivision Code to provide better
guidance to decision makers as to the type of lot mergers the City is attempting to
avoid. Suggested changes to the finding are shown below:
5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the SUFFeunding pattern of development and
d8V8lGPR4eR 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 adjacent and /or adjoining 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 adjacent and /or adjoining lots.
C. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the
minimum lot width and area standards for the Zoning District.
2
Residential Lot Mergers
July 23, 2013
Page 3
However, should Council determine that if more restrictive development regulations are
warranted in addition to the amended finding, the Commission recommends the
following:
1. Restricting the maximum gross floor area on merged lots to not exceed the
aggregate of that which would have otherwise been permitted if these lots
were developed individually prior to the merger with the following
considerations:
a. Limiting the floor area restrictions to only lots in the R -1, R -BI, and R -2
Zoning Districts; and
b. Exempting lot mergers from the floor area limit that bring a property into
conformity or into greater conformity with the minimum lot width and lot
area requirements of the Zoning Code.
2. Maintaining the current required minimum side setback area.
Recommendation
Based on the Planning Commission's recommendations, Code Amendment CA2012-
007 should be removed from Calendar and staff directed to schedule a public hearing
before the City Council for a new amendment revising Finding No. 5 of Section
19.68.030 (H) of the Subdivision Code.
Alternative
If the City Council determines more restrictive development regulations for merged lots
are warranted, direct staff to revise Code Amendment CA2012 -007 as appropriate and
refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant
to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a
project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
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).
3
Residential Lot Mergers
July 23, 2013
Page 4
Submitted by:
Kimberly Brand , AICP
Director
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Memorandum on Residential Lot Mergers
2. May 9, June 6, and June 20, 2013, Planning Commission Minutes
4
Attachment No. CC 1
Planning Commission Memorandum on
Residential Lot Mergers
0
Memorandum
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(949)644-3200
To: City Council
From: Planning Commission
Date: July 23, 2013
Re: Findings and Recommendations on Residential Lot Mergers
Introduction:
Recent lot mergers have raised the question of whether the resulting larger lots and potentially
larger dwellings are desirable and whether additional regulations are needed to preserve the
character of residential neighborhoods. On April 9, 2013, the City Council referred this issue to
the Planning Commission to determine if this is a matter of concern to the City and, if so, how
this issue should be addressed.
The Planning Commission reviewed this issue at public meetings on May 9, 2013, and June 6,
2013. The Planning Commission reviewed examples of recent lot mergers and considered
various regulations used in other cities to control lot mergers and the development on merged
lots.
Findings:
1. Residential lot mergers are not a City -wide issue.
The City is not being overwhelmed with applications for residential lot mergers. Since 2008, the
City has received fifteen (15) lot merger applications, an average of three annually. Most of
these applications are for properties in the older areas of the City (e.g., the Balboa Peninsula
and Corona del Mar) and involve the merger of two (2) lots that do not meet the minimum lot
width or area requirements of the Zoning District. Most lot mergers would bring the property
into greater conformity with Zoning Code standards. Therefore, residential lot mergers are not
significantly affecting the quality and character of the City as a whole.
1
7�
2. Residential lot mergers can affect properties that are close -by.
While residential lot mergers are not transforming the City, they can present compatibility issues
with properties that are in close proximity. A merged lot may be consistent with other lots in the
larger neighborhood in terms of lot area and width, yet could still be incompatible with the lots
that adjoin it and /or those adjacent.
3. The findings required to approve a lot merger need revision.
Section 19.68.030 (H) (5) 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." Both the
Planning Commission and the City Council have struggled with this vague and ambiguous
language. This finding needs to be revised to provide better guidance to decision makers as
to the type of lot mergers the City is attempting to avoid.
4. Increased setbacks and floor area restrictions for merged lots create inequities.
When residential lots are merged, or otherwise reconfigured, setback areas are eliminated
resulting in a larger buildable area and potentially larger dwellings. Increasing the side
setbacks would reduce the buildable area and maximum floor area allowed. Modifying the
development standard would create several existing structures nonconforming. Applying these
modified standards to lots created after the effective date of the amendment would make two
setback standards based on the date the lot was created. This could result in two abutting lots
having different setback standards and floor area limit standards.
Furthermore, modifying residential development standards so that the maximum floor area does
not exceed that allowed prior to the merger only works in the R -1, R -BI, and R -2 Zoning
Districts. However, the vast majority of properties designated for single -unit and two -unit
development are within Zoning Districts where development is regulated by lot coverage, not by
a floor area ratio. Therefore, increasing the side setback requirement would not reduce the
amount of floor area that could be developed in these areas.
Recommendations:
1. Revise Finding No. 5 of Section 19.68.030 (H) of the Subdivision Code to read:
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 adjacent and /or adjoining 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 adjacent
and /or adjoining lots.
2
8
c. Whether the merged lots would be conforming or in greater conformity with the minimum lot width and
area standards for the Zoning District.
2. Should the City Council decide that increased side setbacks and /or floor area limit
restrictions for merged lots is warranted, consideration should be given to exempting
mergers that bring a property into conformity or into greater conformity with the minimum
lot width and lot area requirements of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission
further recommends that the City Council consider the following:
a. Restricting the maximum gross floor area on merged lots should be restricted so as
not to exceed the aggregate of that which would have otherwise been permitted if
these lots were developed individually prior to the merger.
b. No increases to the required minimum side setback area.
c. Limiting any such restrictions to only lots in the R -1, R -BI, and R -2 Zoning Districts.
If the Council determines an amendment to the development standards is warranted, it is
anticipated that the matter would return to the Planning Commission to formulate a
recommendation to the specific language.
3
9
10
Attachment No. CC 2
May 9, June 6, and June 20, 2013,
Planning Commission Minutes
21
12
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 519/13
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 2 RESIDENTIAL LOT MERGER CODE AMENDMENT - (PA2012 -102)
Site Location: City of Newport Beach
Planning Manager Patrick Alford provided a presentation addressing previous consideration by the
Commission and Council, as well as direction by Council to return the item to the Planning Commission for
further consideration. He reported that lot mergers decrease side setback areas and potentially increase the
allowed floor area. He noted the number of lot merger applications submitted per year and addressed
previous locations, types of lot mergers, clarification of "substandard" lots, nonconforming lots, the need to
maintain the character of the community, the potential for unintended consequences, and increasing
buildable square footage because of losing side setbacks. He presented examples of different lot mergers
and floor area analyses based on typical lot sizes and buildable areas.
Mr. Alford presented a review of current standards and reported that General Plan policies do not necessarily
apply to lot mergers, but rather, to residential development in general. He addressed related General Plan
policies and applicable Zoning Code provisions as well as design criteria.
Mr. Alford addressed minimum and maximum lot sizes, ensuring that lots are consistent with surrounding
areas and potential approaches in considering lot mergers. He presented options for the Commission to
consider including applying standards to specific areas or city -wide.
Discussion followed regarding avoiding efforts to restrict lot mergers, the need to define "excessively large
lots" as well as compatibility with surrounding developments, the possibility of exempting substandard lots,
and establishing an incremental process up to a limit.
Chair Toerge suggested broadening the subjective language regarding the definition of excessively large lots
and surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that there could potentially be a large lot merger that would be
detrimental to a smaller adjacent lot.
Commissioner Tucker commented on eliminating setbacks resulting in larger floor and buildable areas, a
previous lot merger action, considering scale and the need to define the surrounding pattern of development
and excessively large lots. He indicated that it might be preferable to have the ambiguity that exists currently
in order to maintain flexibility and stated that he is unsure as to whether there is an issue other than
consideration of total floor area.
Chair Toerge indicated he does not think there is a need to re -write the ordinance, addressed the need to
understand the Code and questioned if there is a way to add weight to the impacts to adjacent properties
versus the entire neighborhood.
Discussion followed regarding Council being the policy- making body and challenges with ascertaining
Council's position.
Commissioner Brown felt that the issue comes down to the view and not as much as the size of a house
adding that the Commission does not have the purview to enforce private views and wondered if a problem
is not being sought for a solution. He addressed the frequency of the issue and agreed with the need to
maintain flexibility by not having a lot of regulation and by assessing applications on a one -by -one basis.
Vice Chair Hillgren stated that the overarching goals and policies drive the matter and addressed protections
for the applicants and their development rights, neighboring properties and the neighborhood. He
commented on varying opinions and stated the need for clear definition such as the nature of the community
the City is trying to protect. He stressed the need to establish a relative norm within each defined area
(neighborhood, community, etc.) and determine its nature before planning criteria can be set.
Chair Toerge felt the issue of setback and how it might grow and expand has not been addressed
satisfactorily; commented on varying setbacks, depending on lot sizes and stated that is the direction he
Page 2 of 4
23
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
5/9/13
would like to see the Commission give to staff. He suggested trying to clear the ambiguity and giving
consideration to giving more weight to closer -in properties or defining the pattern of development. Chair
Toerge did not believe that radical changes will be made to the ordinance that will render it a problem to any
areas in the City. He recommended limiting the floor - area - ratio, increasing setbacks on a scaled basis up to
five (5) feet and clearing the ambiguity.
Commissioner Ameri agreed with the Chair's direction regarding the setback and noted its importance. He
commented on the difficulty of defining a community and felt that it is not needed.
Vice Chair Hillgren felt that there is a rhythm to a pattern of development and addressed cases where more
than two lots are being merged and neighboring properties are being affected.
Chair Toerge agreed that it may be another issue that could be addressed. He encouraged staff to try to
generate language to develop a better solution.
Commissioner Tucker reported on a conversation with Council Member Selich and his opinion regarding
setbacks and allowing the applicant to decide on the configuration.
Chair Toerge commented on the possibility of a hybrid concept regarding setbacks
Commissioner Ameri stated that he has never designed a subdivision with a sixty -foot lot and three -foot
setbacks. He expressed concerns that the discussion will get into too much detail and commented on the
need to leave it to the market in terms of a demand for certain configurations and cautioned against over-
regulating.
Commissioner Brown reiterated the importance of maintaining flexibility.
Interested parties were invited to address the Planning Commission on this matter
Jim Mosher commented on how the issue was returned to the Planning Commission. He stated that
additional details can complicate things, addressed different types of lots in the City and felt that some
ambiguity may be good.
There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Toerge closed public comments
for this item.
Commissioner Kramer arrived at this juncture (7:36 p.m.).
Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski clarified direction relative to substandard lots and
reported that the matter will return to the Planning Commission at its first meeting in June.
Discussion followed regarding scale, street - facing elevations, protecting property owners' development rights,
considering four -sided architecture and impacts on adjacent properties, suggesting alternatives for Council to
consider while providing further direction, dealing with mergers of three (3) or more lots and corner lots.
Ensuing discussion pertained to clarifying direction to staff including setting setback requirements as a
percentage of the lot width, defining terms as discussed above, exempting substandard lots and considering
instances of mergers of three (3) or more lots.
S TAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 3 6ALEOR RECONSIDERATION - None
ITEM NO. 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOP CTOR'S REPORT
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that t d the Planning Commission
received two (2) awards from the American Planning Association. The Outstan ing Award was
Page 3 of 4
24
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/6/13
AYES: Ameri, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: Tucker (Park Avenue Bridge)
ABSENT: Brown, Hillgren, and Kramer
ITEM NO. 3 DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL LOT MERGER CODE AMENDMENT (PA2012-
102)
Planning Manager Alford presented background on the aforementioned item and noted prior
direction received from the Commission to consider the possibility of revising the findings for lot
mergers, setbacks based on lot width, maintaining floor area limits, exempting substandard lots,
applying the requirements City -wide, keeping consistent with development patterns, and mergers
involving more than two lots. He noted an example of how the findings can be modified to provide
additional direction and clarity to decision makers. Mr. Alford reported receiving comments from
Commissioner Tucker making minor modifications to the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Tucker addressed challenges with the original language proposed and noticed
distinctions between lot mergers and what gets developed. He commented on the Ocean
Boulevard project and felt that the language needed clarity and that the house plans should not
have been entertained at all. He addressed surrounding patterns of development and excessively
large lots as well as the need to develop appropriate recommendations for the City Council.
He reviewed details of the revised amendment highlighting the language that he is proposing
relative to the findings. He addressed compatibility and felt that the new language increases
clarity.
Chair Toerge agreed with the need to eliminate ambiguity. He questioned using "nearby' rather
than "adjacent or adjoining" and agreed with the need for clarity. He agreed with evaluating lots
rather than developments when considering lot mergers and addressed the use of "unreasonable"
rather than "material detriment' and noted the rights of property owners to build onto their
properties without causing a detriment to adjacent lots.
Commissioner Ameri agreed with separating lot mergers from development, allowing for increased
flexibility and previous projects considered. He addressed tying the orientation and development
of properties to lot mergers and felt that they should be separate from each other.
Commissioner Myers suggested directing staff to develop a physical dimension as a guideline for
defining "nearby," to provide some physical standard that is not arbitrary, including "defining
adjacent or adjoining."
Commissioner Tucker stated agreement with Commissioner Myers comments.
Discussion followed regarding the need for consistency with the surrounding development and
clarifying "adjacent' and "adjoining ". It was noted that the term "nearby" is not clearly defined.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill commented the use of "nearby" in terms of serving the intent and
the use of "unreasonable" versus "material detriment'. She stated that "material' references
specific things and stated the preference for the use of "unreasonable" because it will take a
common sensible approach and will evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
A straw vote of the Commission resulted in agreement to use the word "unreasonable ".
Page 3 of 5
15
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6/6/13
Mr. Alford addressed suggestions regarding setbacks and tying them to the width of lots and
setting minimum or maximum distances. He added that floor /area ratios can be controlled by
increasing setbacks. He addressed side setbacks and issues related to areas outside the R -1
Zoning District and noted that they already have wider setbacks, larger lot requirements and are
controlled by lot coverage. He listed the areas involved that are controlled by lot coverage rather
than floor /area limits and addressed non - conformity.
Discussion followed regarding the process for going forward, options available, and developing
recommendations for the City Council.
Interested parties were invited to address the Commission on this item.
Jim Mosher addressed specific findings and reported that the section of the Municipal Code under
discussion had been recently changed by Council. He commented on reasons why this item was
sent back to the Planning Commission by the City Council and approval by the Zoning
Administrator of lot mergers, conditions of approval and suggested changes to the language.
There being no others wishing to address the Commission, Chair Toerge closed public comments
on this item.
Commissioner Tucker commented on setbacks, Council's intent, and allocation of mass and the
possibility of adding language to allow flexibility for the applicant for locating the mass /bulk. He felt
that the Zoning Code should be amended to address the issue of lot mergers.
Chair Toerge addressed consistency when considering lot mergers and the possibility of
conditional approval.
Commissioner Myers stated agreement with Commissioner Tucker in terms of needing to adjust
the Zoning Code.
Discussion followed regarding side setbacks, massing of structures, creating burdens on adjacent
properties, establishing clear standards for setbacks (i.e., ten percent of the lot width), setting
minimum /maximum setbacks, and benefits of allowing for increased flexibility.
Commissioner Myers noted that lots created by mergers result in different lots and should be
treated differently as they are developed. He noted it is preferable to allow owners the flexibility to
create their own designs.
Chair Toerge addressed comments submitted by Commissioner Tucker in terms of "adjacent"
and /or "adjoining" lots and agreed with deleting "nearby ".
The matter was agreeable to all Planning Commissioners.
Discussion followed regarding avoiding rendering non- merged lots non - conforming and developing
policies that are clear and allowing for increased flexibility.
The Planning Commissioners agreed with recommendations relative to setback issues.
Ensuing discussion pertained to floor /area ratio limitations being no different after the merge than
before the merge and adding a provision to the Zoning Code that would allow a review of merged
lots.
Page 4 of 5
10
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6/6/13
Mr. Alford summarized a recommendation to the City Council from the Planning Commission
indicating that they should consider revising the findings per discussion this evening and that if
there are additional concerns regarding massing or bulk, that they should consider revising the
Zoning Code to place further restrictions on merged lots.
Ms. Mulvihill noted that the item tonight is simply a discussion and that Mr. Alford will report back to
the City Council on the substance of the discussion.
At Chair Toerge's suggestion, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the
matter will be presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 20, 2013, in order for the
Planning Commission to develop formal recommendations to the City Council.
Commissioner Tucker reported that he will provide language to staff regarding a proposed process.
STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
ITEM IqQ. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ms. Wisneski ooed on actions taken by the City Council during its last meeting, which included
an initiation to end the General Plan to investigate development potentials and the
establishment of an isory committee to support the amendment process.
She added that the Plan nin Commission can move forward with its meeting scheduled on June
20, 2013, since the Commis ' n has now directed staff to return with consideration of a
recommendation to the City Counci garding lot mergers.
ITEM NO. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON ATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PL D ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION,
ACTION, OR REPORT
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None
Commissioner Tucker requested adjourning the meeting in m cry of Isidore C. Myers, a close
friend of his and father of Commissioner Myers.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, meeting was
adjourned at 7:55 p.m. in memory of Isidore C. Myers.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 31, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., on the City Hall Bu
Board located in the entrance of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive.
Michael Toerge, Chairman
Fred Ameri, Secretary
Page 5 of 5
2�
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/2012013
AYES:
Amed, Brown, Myers, Toerge, and Tucker
NOES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
Hillgren
ABSENT:
Kramer
VIII. CURRENT BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 2 RECOMMENDATION PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL LOT MERGERS (PA2012 -102)
Site Location: Citywide
Planning Manager Patrick Alford introduced and presented the background of the item, including Council
consideration and direction as well as prior considerations by the Planning Commission. He presented
details of a memorandum with findings and recommendations to the City Council. He noted a substitute
recommendation from Commissioner Tucker, also for the Planning Commission's consideration.
Chair Toerge thought that recommendations were broken down into four (4) components including
recommending to the City Council to not allow floor -area ratio increases on merged lots and to not expand
setbacks.
Mr. Alford reported that the issues were addressed in the findings.
Chair Toerge felt that Commissioner Tucker's recommendations are appropriate and that discussions
regarding setbacks included whether or not to apply them City -wide.
Commissioner Myers commented on the setbacks not being more than twenty (20 %) percent of the lot width.
He questioned why that was not made part of the recommendation.
Chair Toerge recalled that a recommendation was made not to modify the setbacks.
Mr. Alford stated that his impression was that these recommendations were only made if the City Council
chose to go in that direction and that it would return to the Planning Commission with further direction.
Chair Toerge suggested including recommendations regarding floor- area - ratios and modifying the setbacks.
Commissioner Tucker recalled the same as Chair Toerge relative to the setbacks, as well as allowing five
(5) -foot setbacks fifty (50) -foot lots and related Code requirements. He agreed with leaving the setbacks
alone, unless the City Council decided to modify them. He stated that the Planning Commission opted to
engage the City Council.
Vice Chair Hillgren commented on instances where a lot would be significantly greater than the typical lot
and asked if there was discussion related to large lots.
Chair Toerge stated that efforts were focused on changing and clarifying the finding that deals with lots and
nearby lots as opposed to development, establishing no changes to setbacks and limiting floor -area as
previously recommended.
Secretary Ameri commented on general statements covering the Chair's concerns and noted that the issues
are included in the recommendations, but is not specifically stating amounts.
Vice Chair Hillgren commented on challenges with having larger lots having a more - favorable set of rules
than other merged lots, not including it in the Subdivision Code but create a code that would provide an
opportunity to review mass and bulk for merged lots in certain areas.
Interested parties were invited to address the Planning Commission on this matter.
Mr. James Mosher suggested clarifying terms, with which the City Council may not be familiar including
maximum floor area. He addressed lot coverage and side setbacks.
Page 2 of 5
12
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
06/20/2013
There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Toerge closed the public
comments for this item.
Chair Toerge stated wanting to incorporate corrections suggested by Mr. Mosher as well as specifically
changing the recommendations to include the issue of floor -area ratio, that the changing setbacks would
create inconsistencies, lot coverage and appropriate zoning.
Commissioner Tucker commented on specific recommendations including lot coverage limits and addressing
it through initiation of zone changes.
Mr. Alford reported that the City Council is looking for direction on the original amendment.
Commissioner Tucker stated that he approves the recommendations as originally proposed by staff
Chair Toerge noted that recommendations were finalized by straw vote during the last meeting and felt that
these would simply be memorialized at this time. He felt that general language should be used but felt that
language should be added to include the Planning Commission's specific recommendations and if further
direction is provided, the item would return to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Tucker felt that lot coverage was not discussed at the last meeting since it was assumed that
it was already decided.
Secretary Ameri stated that the Planning Commission should make recommendations and if the City Council
does not approve, they can return the matter to the Planning Commission for additional changes.
Motion made by Chair Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (5 — 1 — 1), to direct staff to
submit the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations to the City Council, incorporating changes
proposed by Mr. Mosher and specific recommendations related to floor -area ratios not exceeding the ratio
before merging two or more lots, no changes to setbacks, and that changes apply only to specific zones
within the City.
AYES:
Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge
NOES:
Tucker
ABSTENTIONS:
None
ABSENT:
Kramer
STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
ITEM NO. 4 16WMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Deputy Community Develo nt Director Brenda Wisneski reported that the next Planning Commission
meeting will be July 18, 2013.
ITEM NO. 5 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON ERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A 1ITURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR
REPORT - None
ITEM NO. 6 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES - None
IV. RECOGNITION OF CHAIR MIC
THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
This aforementioned it was heard at this juncture.
Page 3 of 5
19