Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Residential Development Standards Discussiono�,EWr°Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSISON STAFF REPORT a = February 8, 2018 C�<ipp0.NP Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards Discussion SITE LOCATION: Cliff Haven Single -Family Neighborhood PLANNER: James Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director a campbell(cDnewportbeachca.gov, 949-644-3210 PROJECT SUMMARY Discussion of development standards applicable to the Cliff Haven neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION 1) Discuss the information; and 2) Direct staff to receive community input. Commissioner Dunlap requested discussion of this item. He has recused himself from any further involvement due to a conflict of interest as he owns property in the neighborhood. Staff has been informed that the Cliff Haven Homeowners Association endorses this discussion. His proposal is attached to this report (Attachment PC1). Cliff Haven was subdivided in 1947, and is a residential neighborhood with single family, duplex and multifamily development. This discussion item relates only to the single family zoned area consisting of 269 lots as shown on the air photo below. The majority of the lots are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet in area and the zoning is R-1 (Single Unit - Residential). Over the years as property values have increased, property owners have expanded their homes and more recently, complete replacement of some homes has occurred. Some residents have questioned the appropriateness of the development standards given how large some homes appear. 1 9 DISCUSSION Development Standards Cliff Haven is not located within the Coastal Zone and it is within the R-1 zoning district. Development standards are summarized as follows Setbacks: Front: 20 or10 feet (most 20 feet) Side: 4 feet Rear: 10 feet Height: 24 feet for flat roofs and parapet walls & guardrails 29 feet for sloping roofs Floor Area: 2 times the buildable area' ' The buildable area is the area of the lot minus required setback areas 3 Parking: 2 -car garage for homes less than 4,000 square feet 3 -car garage for larger homes Lots range in size and dimensions and the average lot size is 9,495 square feet. A more typical lot is close to 60 -foot by 125 -foot and 7,500 square feet in area. The lot would have a 4,940 square foot buildable area and could support a 9,880 square foot home if the owner maximized the potential. This size home has yet to be constructed, but some new and expanded homes are well above 5,000 square feet. Staff believes the reason property owners have not taken full advantage of the development potential is due to the large lot sizes, the large size of home that would result, and a desire to provide usable outdoor open spaces. The Zoning Code requires one sideyard to provide a minimum 3 -foot wide clearance to allow for emergency access. The opposite sideyard can include encroachments that can reduce the clearance to as little as 18 inches. A common example is a 24 -inch fireplace encroachment and a 6 -inch thick property line wall reducing a 4 -foot setback to 18 inches clear. If the property line fence or wall is shared or on the neighbor's property, the clearance will be 3 to 6 inches more. Such a fireplace encroachment cannot be more than 9 feet wide so the reduced clearance is limited. Homes will typically have other encroachments such as landscaping, gas meters, vents, hose reels, or anything the homeowner stores in the sideyard. As a general rule, setback areas must remain clear to the sky and NBMC Section 20.30.110 provides specific allowances for encroachments (i.e. eves, architectural features, bay windows, fire places, other structures, etc.). NBMC Section 20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) is attached to this report (Attachment PC2). Fences and walls are also allowed and are regulated by NBMC Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). NBMC Section 20.30.040 is attached to this report (Attachment PC3). Concerns Concerns have been raised about diminished sideyard clearances reducing emergency access and the ever increasing bulk and size of homes. It is important to note that these issues are not unique to Cliff Haven. The R-1 development standards and allowed encroachments apply in other neighborhoods and other residential zones (i.e. all R-1, R- 2 & MFR zones). Side yard encroachments can also be an issue in some residential planned communities if they do not have more restrictive standards. When a planned community does not provide standards for fences and sideyard encroachments, NBMC Sections 20.30.40 and 20.30.110 are applied. If sideyard encroachments are an issue in Cliff Haven, there is a strong likelihood they are an issue in other neighborhoods. 0 Change The City can consider changes to standards to achieve particular objectives. Setback distances can be increased; encroachments can be reduced or eliminated; floor area can be reduced; or open space on the second floor can be required. The design of future homes and additions will be modified as a result. All new development and additions would need to comply going forward after the adoption of an ordinance implementing the final changes. Existing homes that would not conform to the new standards would be rendered legal, nonconforming. Repair and maintenance might continue but replacement of the original might not. This approach would work well for simple encroachments into existing setbacks but it would present more challenges if setbacks are increased, floor area is reduced, or second floor area is limited in size. Deciding how much alteration the nonconformities could undergo is something to carefully consider if there is any desire to reduce or eliminate existing nonconforming conditions. The City could implement changes specific to Cliff Haven through either an overlay district or by creating new development standards applicable for the specific geographic area similar to Corona del Mar. Summary & Recommendation The concerns raised in the Cliff Haven neighborhood may be characterized as "mansion ization." The issue is not limited to Cliff Haven, and as a result, a community— wide discussion may need to take place. At the January 29, 2018, City Council Planning Session, staff recommended a, "Listen, Talk and Learn," process as a precursor to amending the General Plan. Staff would go out to the community through a series of public forums and stakeholder meetings and discuss issues that affect the various neighborhoods. Discussion wouldn't be limited and staff would ask, "What is going well and what is going less well," among other probing questions. The goal would be to solicit thoughtful responses thereby creating a list of issues to be explored at a later date. Addressing the issues might be part of amending the General Plan or quite possibly through Zoning Code amendments if no amendment to the General Plan were necessary. The process has not been completely outlined and it could begin in the spring and conclude by the end of the year. When these sessions occur, "mansionization" is likely to be a topic of discussion and the feedback will be instructive to future actions the City may take. Staff recommends consideration of this item occur through the "Listen, Talk and Learn" process and after we have further direction from the City Council. 5 Alternatives The Planning Commission can initiate an amendment of Title 20 (Zoning Code) in accordance with NBMC Section 20.66.020 with a simple motion directing the review and preparation of draft amendments applicable to Cliff Haven or all residential zones. The Commission can make the direction broad to encompass all development standards or it can be focused to specific standards (i.e. setbacks, encroachments, etc.) Environmental Review This is a discussion item and no action other than further study could occur. The initiation of an amendment to zoning regulations would be considered a planning study for possible future actions which the City has not approved or adopted and is exempt from the environmental review pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The possible future adoption of a change to zoning regulations is subject to environmental review that would be conducted prior to any final action. Public Notice The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the Planning Commission considers the item). Prepared by: Submitted by: Jim Campbell Seimone Jurjis, PKtBor Deputy Community Development Director Community Devel6pment Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Commissioner Dunlap discussion proposal PC 2 NBMC Section 20.30.110 Setback Regulations and Exceptions PC 3 NBMC Section 20.30.040 Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls M Attachment PC 1 Commissioner Dunlap discussion proposal 7 2 Cliff Haven Setback & Floor Area Modification The current setbacks for the construction of an R-1 home in the above titled neighborhoods are as follows: 1. Front yard setback: 10 or 20 feet from front PL/city right of way. The predominant setback is 20 feet. 2. Side yard setbacks: 4 feet from side property line. Limited encroachments are allowed. One side yard must provide a 3 feet passageway free and clear except a fence at the property line may encroach leaving a minimum of 2 feet. On the other side, a fireplace (no wider than 9 feet) may encroach but must maintain at least 2 feet to the side property line; however, a property line fence or wall can further reduce the separation further. 3. Rear yard: 10 feet from the rear property line. 4. Buildable factor: 2 times the buildable area. The buildable area is the gross lot area minus setback areas. Due to the ability to encroach into the side yard setback on one side the property the ability for proper emergency access is severely obstructed. Currently there is a recently completed home that built there side yard fence inboard of the property line leaving only 19 inches clear between the fence and the chimney. This has rendered this side of the property unusable for ingress or egress for both the inhabitants of the home and emergency personnel. I have spoken to Chief Duncan and Susan in Fire prevention who both support a change to the setbacks to improve access. Additionally, the current and antiquated setbacks coupled with the 2 times building factor promote the "mansionazation" of are revered neighborhood. An owner of a lot that is 125' x 60' or 7,500 s.f. could build a 9,880 s.f. home if the owner maximized the potential. 9 Proposal Modify setbacks and the building factor as follows: 1. Front yard setback: 10 and 20 feet to remain as is. 2. Side yard setback: Change to 5 feet with a minimum 3 feet clear between any building and or fence. 3. Rear yard setback: Change to 15 feet 4. Building Factor : Change to 1.75 times the buildable area. New setbacks and proposed building factor for a 7,500 s.f. lot would potentially allow a 7,875 s.f. home (about a 20% reduction). S. Second Floor Area Limit: 20% less than the first floor The changes would only apply to Cliff Haven shown below. EVE_ Ie 10 a.. 10 Attachment PC 2 NEW Section 20.30.110 Setback Regulations and Exceptions 11 12 20.30.110 Setback Regulations and Exceptions. This section establishes standards to ensure the provision of open areas around structures for: visibility and traffic safety; access to and around structures; access to natural light and ventilation; separation of incompatible land uses; space for privacy, landscaping, and recreation; protection of natural resources; and safety from fire and geologic hazards. A. Setback Requirements 1. Structures. a. Principal Structures. Principal structures shall conform with the setback requirements established for: i. Each zoning district in Part 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District Standards); ii. Any specific uses identified in Part 4 of this title (Standards for Specific Land Uses); iii. Any special setback areas established in Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District); and iv. Any special setback areas established in Titles 9 and 15. b. Access to Dwellings. On residential lots wider than thirty (30) feet, if the primary entrance to a single - or two -unit dwelling faces a side setback area the entry door shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the side property line and a three -foot -wide unobstructed walkway shall be provided up to a minimum height of eight feet between the primary entrance and the public street or alley. c. Access to Side Setback Area. On residential lots, regardless of the setback area encroachments allowed by this subsection, a minimum thirty-six (36) inch wide passageway shall be maintained within at least one side setback area adjacent to the principal structure in compliance with the following: i. The passageway shall be free of any encroachments or obstructions from ground level to a height of eight feet, including mechanical equipment, and other items attached to, or detached from, the principal structure; ii. Fences and walls located immediately adjacent to the property line may encroach up to six inches. No reduction or modification to this requirement shall be allowed; and iii. The opposite side setback area may have encroachments allowed by this subsection. d. Accessory Structures. All accessory structures shall comply with the setback requirements established for: i. Accessory structures in subsection (D)(2) of this section (Accessory Structures) and any allowed encroachments; and ii. Any special setback areas established in Titles 9 and 15. 2. Setback Areas to Be Open. Each required setback area shall be open and unobstructed from the ground upward, except as provided in this section. B. Location and Measurement of Setbacks. Setbacks shall be located and measured as Follows: 1. General. a. Measure at Right Angles. The distance/depth of a setback area (i.e., front, side, or rear) shall be measured at right angles from the nearest property line establishing a setback area line parallel to that property line. 13 b. Future Street Right -of -Way. Whenever a future street right-of-way line is officially established, required setback areas shall be measured at right angles from the established future right-of-way line(s). 2. Front Setback Area. a. General. The front setback area shall extend across the entire width of the lot frontage. b. Corner Lots. The front setback area for a corner lot shall be the required distance parallel to the shortest property line adjoining the street. 3. Side Setback Area. The side setback area shall be established by a line parallel with the side property line and extending between the front and rear setback areas. 4. Street Side Setback Area. The side setback area on the street side of a comer lot shall be established by a line parallel with the side property line adjoining the street and extending between the front and rear setback areas. 5. Rear Setback Area. a. General. The rear setback area shall extend across the entire width of the rear of the lot. b. Irregularly Shaped Lots. Where the side lot lines converge to a point at the rear of the lot and make an angle ninety (90) degrees or less, a line ten (10) feet long within the lot, parallel to and at a maximum distance from the front lot line, shall be deemed to be the rear lot line for the purpose of determining the depth of the required rear setback area. Where the angle created by the convergence of two side lot lines at the rear of the lot is greater than ninety (90) degrees, a line ten (10) feet long measured from the point of convergence and perpendicular to the front lot line shall establish the location of the required rear setback line. See Figure 3-4 (Rear Setback Areas on Irregularly Shaped Lots). M i 10, i Front Lot Line ,N Front Lot Line Front Lot Line Front Lot Line Figure 3-4 Front Lot line Front Lot Line Rear Setback Areas on Irregularly Shaped Lots C. Alternative Setback Area Location. In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District. D. Allowed Encroachments into Setback Areas. Encroachments into required setback areas are allowed in compliance with the standards in this subsection, except as provided in subsection (13)(1) of this section. 1. General Regulations. a. Setbacks on Setback Maps. Notwithstanding any requirements in this section, all setback areas identified on the setback maps shall be regulated as front setback areas. b. Bluff Overlay. The encroachments allowed by this subsection shall not apply to designated bluff setback areas. Refer to Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District) for setback regulations and encroachments. c. Alleys. No encroachments at the ground level are allowed within the required rear setback area of a lot abutting an alley. Rear setback areas abutting alleys shall be kept clear of obstructions. d. Waterfront Areas. Allowed encroachments into required setback areas abutting or adjacent to the waterfront of Newport Bay, the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the 15 Oxbow Loop), or the channels in West Newport shall not exceed a height of forty-two (42) inches above the existing grade. e. Traffic Safety Visibility Areas. See Section 20.30.130 for restrictions on encroachments into traffic safety visibility areas. 2. Accessory Structures. a. Accessory structures, including housings for mechanical equipment, not more than six feet in height and totaling no more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet per structure, may be located within a required side or rear setback area other than a rear setback area abutting an alley. b. Arbors, trellises, and similar garden structures may be allowed to encroach into required front, side, and rear setback areas subject to the following limits: i. The maximum footprint of the structure shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet; and ii. The maximum height of the structure shall not exceed nine feet. c. Display areas for new motor vehicles associated with an allowed vehicle sales facility may encroach into a required front or street side setback area, provided a setback of at least two feet is maintained from the street adjacent property line. d. Fences, hedges, and walls may be established within required setback areas in compliance with the requirements of Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). e. Decks, landings, patios, platforms, porches, steps, and terraces, and similar structures not more than eighteen (18) inches in height measured from the existing grade may be located within a required side or rear setback area other than those abutting an alley. 3. Architectural Features. a. Roof overhangs, brackets, cornices, and eaves may encroach up to thirty (30) inches into a required front, side, or rear setback area, including required third floor front or rear setbacks; provided, that no architectural feature shall project closer than twenty-four (24) inches from a side property line and a minimum vertical clearance of at least eight feet above grade is maintained. b. Decorative architectural features (e.g., belt courses, ornamental moldings, pilasters, and similar features) may encroach up to six inches into a required setback area. 4. Awnings and Canopies. Awnings and canopies may encroach into required setback areas up to a maximum of five feet subject to the following limits. a. Residential Districts. i. Front: one-half the depth of the required front setback area. ii. Side: zero feet, except over doors up to twenty-four (24) inches from property line, maximum width shall not exceed the standard width of a door plus twelve (12) inches. iii. Rear: two and one-half feet. iv. Vertical clearance: six and one-half feet above grade. b. Nonresidential Districts, Including Mixed -Use Districts. i. Front: one-half the depth of the required front setback area. ii. Side: two feet. 10 iii. Rear: one-half the depth of the required rear setback area. iv. Vertical clearance: eight feet above grade. 5. Balconies Abutting East Ocean Front and West Ocean Front. a. Balconies may encroach up to a maximum of thirty-six (36) inches into a required front setback area along East Ocean Front and West Ocean Front. Balcony railings shall not exceed a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches and shall be constructed of either transparent material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open. b. Balconies shall be cantilevered so that no underlying support is necessary. Roofs over balconies shall not be allowed to encroach into required front setback areas except as provided in subsection (D)(3) of this section (Architectural Features). 6. Bay Windows and Greenhouse Windows. Bay windows and greenhouse windows shall be allowed to encroach into required setback areas subject to the following limits: a. No more than two bay windows or greenhouse windows shall be allowed to encroach into anyone setback area; b. Bay windows and greenhouse windows shall not exceed eight feet in width or ten (10) feet in height within the area of encroachment; c. Bay windows and greenhouse windows shall be cantilevered and shall be designed to preclude use as a door or entry; d. The exterior bottom surface of a bay window or greenhouse window shall be elevated a minimum of eighteen (18) inches above the adjacent finished interior floor surface at the required building setback line; e. Encroachments into required setback areas shall be limited as follows: TABLE 3-3 Standard Allowed Encroachment Additional Regulations Front setback (4 8 to less than 10 If): 16 in. Front setback (10 ft. or more): 2 ft. Side setback: 2 ft. Limited to first floor only. The encroachment shall be at least twenty- four (24) inches from the side property line. Rear setback: 2 ft. Not allowed when the rear property line abuts an alley. Distance between detached structures: 2 fl. 7. Fireplaces, Barbecues, and Chimneys—Attached. a. Front and Rear Setback Area. Fireplaces, barbecues, and chimneys attached to the principal structure that are less than nine feet in width may encroach up to two feet into a required front or rear setback area that is ten (10) feet or greater in depth. 27 b. Side Setback Area. Fireplaces and chimneys attached to the principal structure that are less than nine feet in width may encroach up to thirty (30) inches into a required side setback area; provided, that the encroachment shall be at least twenty-four (24) inches from the side property line. 8. Fireplaces and BarbecuesFreestanding. a. Front Setback Area. Freestanding fireplaces (gas only) and barbecues with a maximum height of forty-two (42) inches (not including the barbecue hood) shall be allowed to encroach into the required front setback area, provided the total length of the barbecue and counter does not exceed six feet. b. Side and Rear Setback Area. Freestanding fireplaces (gas only) and barbecues with a maximum height of six feet shall be allowed to encroach into the required side or rear setback area, provided a minimum thirty-six (36) inch clear path of travel is maintained adjacent to any habitable structures. 9. Garages and Carports for Duplexes. Where three parking spaces are located in garages or carports across the rear of a lot that is less than thirty (30) feet ten (10) inches wide, one garage/carport wall or support may encroach into the side setback area subject to the following: a. Distance to Property Line. The distance from the garage wall or carport support to the nearest side property line shall be not less than twenty-six (26) inches plus the amount that the width of the lot exceeds thirty (30) feet. The other side setback area shall have a clear passageway a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches wide, clear of any obstructions; and b. Width of Garage/Carport. The width of each garage/carport shall not be greater than the minimum required by Section 20.40.090 (Parking Standards for Residential Uses). 10. Basement Walls. Basement walls that are located completely below grade may encroach into a required setback area up to twelve (12) inches. 11. Light Standards. In nonresidential zoning districts, light standards used in conjunction with the illumination of parking lots and walkways shall be allowed to encroach into a required setback area, provided all of the requirements of Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) are complied with. 12. Protective Railing. Protective railings around balconies and windows required by Title 15 may encroach up to six inches into a required setback area. 13. Second Stories Abutting Alleys. In residential districts having alleys to the rear of the lot or development site, a second story may be allowed to encroach into the required setback area subject to the following conditions and exclusions: a. Encroachments shall not extend closer than seven and one-half feet to the center of any alley; b. Encroachments shall not extend closer than two and one-half feet to the rear property line; c. That portion of the building that encroaches into the required rear setback area shall have a minimum ground clearance of eight feet; d. No encroachment shall be allowed on lots having a depth exceeding eighty-five (85) feet; and e. No encroachment shall be allowed on corner lots located at the intersection of two ten (10) foot wide alleys. 14. Shoring. Permanent or temporary shoring may encroach into a required setback area, provided it is located completely below finished grade and at least twelve (12) inches from any property line. 15. Swimming Pools/Spas. Swimming pools, spas, and other similar devices/equipment that are placed directly upon the existing grade and are less than forty-two (42) inches in height may be located within a required front, side, or rear setback area other than those abutting an alley. M 16. Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory dwelling units maybe established within required setback areas in compliance with the requirements of Section 20.48.200 (Accessory Dwelling Units). (Ord. 2017-11 § 4, 2017; Ord. 2015-15 §§ 27, 2015; Ord. 2010-21 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2010) 19 20 Attachment PC 3 NBMC Section 20.30.040 Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls 21 22 20.30.040 Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls. This section provides standards for the provision of fences, hedges, walls, and retaining walls. A. Maximum Height Allowed. 1. Fences, Hedges, and Walls. Maximum heights offences, hedges, and walls are shown in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS Location Maximum Height Front setback areas. 42 inches. See subsection (B) of this section. Rear and interior side setback areas. 6 feet in residential and commercial zoning districts. 8 feet in industrial zoningdistricts adjacent to residential uses. Setback areas abutting or adjacent to the waterfront of 42 inches from existing grade prior to construction. Setback areas on Balboa Newport Bay, the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean, the Old Island and Little Balboa Island that are abutting or adjacent to Newport Bay are Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), or the regulated by subsection (B) of this section. channels in West Newport. At intersections of streets, alleys and driveways within See Section 20.30.130 (Traffic Safety Visibility Area). traffic sight areas. 2. Retaining Walls. The maximum height of a retaining wall shall be eight feet measured from finish grade at the base of the wall, not including any required guardrails. A minimum horizontal separation equal to the height of the tallest retaining wall shall be provided between retaining walls, except that the required separation shall not be more than six feet. The above requirements shall not apply to retaining walls that are an integral part of principal structures. An increase in the height of a retaining wall may be requested in compliance with Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits). B. Special Area Regulations. In front setback areas in Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, West Newport, East Bay Front on Little Balboa Island, and North Bay Front and South Bay Front on Balboa Island fences and walls shall be allowed to extend to a height of five feet; provided, that any portion of the fence or wall above two feet shall be constructed of open grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, pickets, Plexiglas, or similar materials so that at least forty (40) percent of the portion of the fence or wall above two feet is open. See Figure 3-1. C. Exceptions to Maximum Height. 1. Grade Differential. Where the existing or proposed grade of a lot adjacent to the front setback area is more than twenty-four (24) inches above the adjacent sidewalk (or curb elevation where no sidewalk exists), a maximum twenty-four (24) inch high retaining wall shall be allowed to be located at the front property line. Additional retaining walls shall be allowed to a maximum height of thirty-six (36) inches each, provided they are set back a minimum distance of twenty-four (24) inches from the inward face of the previous retaining wall. Additional retaining walls shall be subject to the same limitation. A maximum forty-two (42) inch guardrail shall be allowed atop the uppermost retaining wall for safety purposes, provided the guardrail is constructed of open grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, pickets, or similar materials so that at least forty (40) percent of the fence is open. See Figure 3-1. 2. Decorative Fence/Wall Details and Lights. a. Finials, light fixtures, pilaster caps, pots, and similar decorative items may be placed on fence or wall vertical support elements (e.g., pilasters, pillars, posts, etc.), provided they are secure and do not extend more than twelve (12) inches above the maximum allowed height. b. The number of decorative items (e.g., finials, pilaster caps, pots, and similar items) and light fixtures shall be limited to not more than one item or fixture for every six lineal feet of fence or wall. 23 3. Fencing for Pools and Spas. a. Swimming pools, spas, and other similar features shall be fenced in compliance with Title 15. b. Fencing and guardrails for ponds, spas, and swimming pools located in a front setback area or in the rear and side setback areas regulated as front setback areas on lots with forty-two (42) inch height limitations may be allowed to exceed the height limit in compliance with the following standards: i. Fences shall be constructed of open grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, pickets, or similar materials so that at least forty (40) percent of the fence or wall is open. In lieu of the above, glass or Plexiglas may be allowed; and ii. Fence height shall be limited to the minimum required by Title 15. sidewalk 5110" 40 Percent Open Pedestrian Construction Required 0 ry Figure 3-1 Grade Differential at Front Property Line 4. Residential Uses Adjacent to Commercial Uses or Alleys. For residential lots adjacent to nonresidential zoning districts or commercial alleys, fences, walls, or hedges may be up to eight feet in height in required residential side yards for buffering and/or sound attenuation. M `Existing Grade 40 Percent Open R T Construction v Existing Required Grade 5-10" Pedestrian 2'-0" Figure 3-1 Grade Differential at Front Property Line 4. Residential Uses Adjacent to Commercial Uses or Alleys. For residential lots adjacent to nonresidential zoning districts or commercial alleys, fences, walls, or hedges may be up to eight feet in height in required residential side yards for buffering and/or sound attenuation. M 5. Residential Lots Where the Top of Slab Is Required to Be Raised to 9.0 NAVD88 and Where the Grade of the Lot Is Proposed to Be Increased. The height of fences and walls within required side and rear yard setback areas may be increased provided the height does not exceed six feet as measured from the proposed finished grade and nine feet as measured from the existing grade prior to construction. Additionally, the height of fences or walls shall not exceed nine feet as measured from the existing grade of an abutting lot. The portion of the fence or wall above six feet in height from the existing grade prior to construction shall be constructed of open grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, pickets, or similar materials so that at least sixty (60) percent of the fence or wall is open or is constructed of a transparent material. D. Measurement of Fence or Wall Height. The height of a fence, hedge, or wall shall be measured from the existing grade prior to construction at the location where the fence, hedge, or wall is located. E. Prohibited Fence Materials. Barbed wire, electrical fences, razor wire, and other similar materials shall not be allowed in residential zoning districts. (Ord. 2012-11 § 1 (Exh. A), 2012: Ord. 2010-21 § l (Exh. A)(part), 20 10) 2.5 Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Don Krotee <dkrotee@krotee.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:41 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@spon- newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: Residential Development Standards Planning Commissioners: I read with interest the presentation of the review of the side yard standards in Cliffhaven and thank Commissioner Dunlap for penning such a sensitive approach. As an architect, I applaud the revision of these side yard rules and urge their approval. As an option, the staff and commission might discuss labeling one side yard, "accessible yard", visible from the FD or ambulance from the street so that the authorities approaching the house with a gurney will know, by the sign identification, which side of the front door provides the most clearance and nearest entry point. The "sign" could be as small as a FD logo mounted on the fencing. Very best, Don Krotee 773 Avocado Avenue Corona del Mar, Ca. 92625 D o n K r o t e e 11-7— T\ uNr Donald Krotee Partnership, Inc. A Professional Practice of Planning & Architecture 230 North Bush Street Santa Ana - California • 92701-5361 tel 714-547-7621 X 100 fax 714-647-0193 cell 714-329-3036 email dkrotee@krotee.com web www.krotee.com Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Fred Armstrong <FArmstrong@ar-ins.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:38 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Mansionizatiion in CDM For decades CDM has exuded a charm and appeal making it one of the most desirable locations to live in Southern California and beyond. It is recognized for its ambiance not only in California but throughout the United States. Today, driven by economic gain, outside speculators and developers are exploiting the CDM community by maximizing the square footage of the homes in order to increase their sales price and profits. Homes are not merely being remodeled and updated but rather being completely torn down and replaced with much larger structures inconsistent with the charm that has made CDM successful. The developers have no intention of living here and maintaining the integrity of the community but rather their goal is to flip the house with maximum leverage. The beach traffic is already an issue and with larger homes and additional condominiums the density becomes even worse. Please refrain from liberally interpreting or changing our current building codes so that CDM can retain the characteristics which have made it desirable and renown. Thank you. John F. and Laura Armstrong 232 Iris Avenue CDM, CA 92625 Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Jeff Stokes <jstokesoc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:54 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Residential Development Standards Hello, We need some common sense approach to building new homes in Newport Heights. The current developers are building homes that are too large for the standard 6,000 foot lot. The new homes have no yards just patios. City standards should mandate a certain percentage for open space and for proper setbacks. Some of the new homes are just ugly boxes. Thanks Jeff Stokes Newport resident Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Tim <talanste@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 12:05 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Building in CDM Dear Planning Commisioners, One of the nice things about Newport Beach is the beauty and charm with our various homes. In the last ten or fifteen years however, there has been a trend on behalf of some property owners to build houses that are totally out of character for their area in size and in style. They do not "enhance" the neighborh000d but rather stick out in an obtrusive way that changes its character and charm. We hope that you will address this trend of "mansionization" in Newport Beach and consider ways to prevent big box houses from taking over the city. Tim Stephens Seaview Ave CDM Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Portia Weiss <portiaweiss@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 10:17 AM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Upcoming Mansionization decisions Dear Planning Commissioners, Please accept our sincere gratitude for your past and future decisions which have helped prevent our coastal community, an irreplaceable gem, from being damaged by any proposed, irresponsible development of residential and commercial projects. Irresponsible development fractures the integrity of the Newport Beach we all adore! The exceptional charm of Newport still remains viable, thanks to your listening to the residents. Our coastal community is imperiled by the nationwide trend of overbuilding of both residential and commercial properties. Aggressive, investment development, which pushes the limits of FAR, exploits the exquisite character of Newport Beach. It is no secret that high density structures not only destroy the privacy and light of existing residents, but also fragment the entire spirit of our neighborhoods. It is imperative that all future decisions for new construction regulations and city ordinances honor and respect our existing neighborhoods in the interests of our residents. When making your decisions concerning FAR, whether it be in Cliffhaven or any of our treasured communities, please assure us that all new construction will be compatible with the existing residential and commercial character, thus protecting the integrity of our city. The efforts we make now to develop responsibly will protect our exceptionally wonderful beach community for future generations of residents and visitors. Newport Beach is worth protecting! Respectfully, Portia Weiss Newport Heights Portia Weiss Portiaweiss(agmail.com Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Joyce Snyder <joycesart@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:00 AM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Building codes >> Dear Planning Commissioners, >> I would like to ask you to protect our neighborhoods from oversized houses which change the character of the city. Some of this is occurring because zoning laws are not being followed and some of it is occurring because the generous FAR in our code allows big box houses to be built. I appreciate anything you can do to protect our quality of life. Joyce Snyder Dale Snyder 7 Royal Saint George Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Karen Carlson <kkc2616@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 7:38 AM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: Susan Skinner Subject: Mans ionization of Newport Beach Dear Planning commission: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the approval of the hugely oversized homes now being built in my neighborhood in the Flower streets of Corona del Mar. The house ? at the corner of Marguerite and Seaview is the ultimate example of building to maximize the square footage with NO consideration of the affect on the community. The axiom "Sticks out like a sore Thumb" describes it perfectly. Building out to the maximum eliminates yards and interaction with people passing by and getting to know your neighbors. I personally experienced this recently with a couple moving in across the street )to a stunning house built on 2 lots) in October and I have yet to have a chance to meet them!! They go into the garage and the doors close.... Another example is the proposed house at 2607 Ocean Blvd. As proposed it will loom over the neighborhood and block the view of the bay and the wedge for the many people who each day walk the ramp down to China Cove and appreciate the whole ambiance of the Cove. Please don't just let the builders/developers maximize the property square footage, but also consider how it fits in and compliments the neighborhoods. Big is not always better. Sincerely Karen Carlson Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: kent moore <kentmoore@roadrunner.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 7:18 AM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Future development in Corona del Mar Dear Commissioners: Although I have voiced my opinion on the proposed development at 358 Dahlia, just around the corner from me, I wanted to make some general observations about what many of my neighbors and friends are calling the "mansionization" of Corona del Mar and elsewhere in Newport Beach.. I consider myself lucky to have lived in and owned property in this neighborhood for almost 48 years now. I'm sure you'll all agree that this part of Corona del Mar is one of the most beautiful and unique areas in the city. But it's fast losing its charm. I ask you to please drive down the 300 and 200 blocks of Carnation Ave. and take a hard look at the Carnation Bluff home development over the years. Two projects are still under construction and one of them has been a construction site for many years now, disrupting everyone's lives who reside in this area. Most of the harbor, peninsula and ocean views have been blocked by these behemoths and it continues all the way down Ocean Blvd. Is this what the City had in mind when it granted exceptions and variances to well-established building and zoning codes? I know Corona del Mar is no longer a little vacation village and private citizens do have a right to develop their properties but where does it end? In this modern world of Architecture has this "boxy' look become the norm? I'm sorry but some of these places are just plain ugly. What happened to aesthetics and creativity? Certainly, some of you commissioners with architectural/building backgrounds agree with my sentiments on this. Face it, much of Corona del Mar's uniqueness and charm has been lost forever. Let's try and reign things in and take another look at this somewhat out of control situation, It's time to revisit some of the thinking which allowed the construction of some of these grotesque, monolith -like residences. Thank you. Kent Moore 210 Carnation Ave., CDM (949) 244-1832 Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 1:13 AM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: TOMLU BAKER Subject: Mansionization RETRANSMISSION Dear Planning Commissioners: It is timely and appropriate for the Planning Commission to address the concerns of mansionization in the City. The residents has long expressed to the City their concerns with mansionization in Cliffhaven and basically all City areas. The proliferation of mansionization in the neighborhoods results in the decrease of the ambiance of our admired and tourist -attracting City. All too often, exceptions to the zoning code enable the mansionization proliferation to be imposed on the neighborhoods. Please consider what actions might betaken on Commissioner Dunlap's proposal to prevent the unwelcome mansionization and protect the charm of our City. Sincerely Tom Baker Newport Heights Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@aol.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 7:50 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Letter to the Planning Commission re "mansionization" Dear Planning Commisioners, One of the nice things about Newport Beach is the diversity of the different neighborhoods and the residents desire to maintain their property. Until the last several years there was a conscious effort on behalf of property owners to build new houses that enhanced their neighborhoods in terms of size and architecture. This desire to enhance was ithe guiding rule for builders. In the last ten or fifteen years however, there has been a trend on behalf of some property owners to build houses that are totally out of character for their area in size and in style. They do not "enhance" the neighborh000d but rather stick out in an obtrusive way that changes its character. These anomalies are not appreciated by their neighbors. There are not strict rules for building or conformity such as in Irvine and other planned cities. Up until now the city has relied on the goodwill of the property owners. Because the city does not have rules which are strict and because they allow zoning code exceptions, there are increasingly more property owners who are taking advantage of this vacuum. Relying on a feeling of commmunity and indebtedness to ones neighbors no longer suffices. We hope that you will address this trend of "mansionization" in Newport Beach and consider ways to prevent big box houses from taking over the city. Lynn Lorenz 434 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, Ca 92663 949 646 2054 Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Chris Jannuzzi <cjannuzzi@cox.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Hello. Will there be an opportunity to speak at the meeting this Thursday? I would like to voice my support for the projects that are being attacked by the folks that call themselves, Line in the Sand. The Sand Crabs, as I call them, do not speak for the majority of the community, they are simply louder and if they get their way, our community and resale values will suffer. I would love to bring an opposing viewpoint. Thank you. -CJ Sent from my Phone Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: charlene murphy <murphy.charlene@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 10:38 AM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; SPON Subject: Public Comments: Residential Development Standards We are so pleased that the Planning Commission will address the problem of mansionization at the February 8th meeting. The current development standards need to be reviewed and revised. Under our current standards, large homes - mansions- 10,000 sq foot homes are allowed on lots that don't even support 5,000 sq ft homes. We need to get the trend in Newport Beach of mansionization under control. These super structures are eye sores in our beautiful town. Let's tighten up our standards. Charlene and Rick Murphy 2552 Vista Dr Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Milvi vanderslice <Milvivander@aol.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 8:04 AM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Please stop mansionizing our neighborhoods It makes them cold and forbidding. I also think there should be a moratorium for any new building, till our drought is officially over. You made us save and scrimp every drop last year, and nowyou just keep building. What kind of planning is that? Milvi Vanderslice Sent from my Pad Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Daniel Hamm <danielhamm@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 9:37 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Mansionization Is a Good Thing To Whom This Concerns, I am a Newport Beach Resident and love to see development and people investing in my neighborhood. More investment and larger homes add more property tax dollars, increase the safety of homes because the newer larger homes are required to confrom to safer building code. Typically, the residents against mansionization are the owners of very old properties that have not been updated and do not have the desire to update or the means to invest in our neighborhood. As properties turnover whether by downsizing, relocation or probate, new owners will not be able to modernize and it will bring in residents who cannot afford to modernize and invest, again bringing down values. We would prefer new residents who can take care and maintain their properties. Ultimately, this leads to less property taxes for Newport Beach, which means less jobs and services for the City of Newport Beach and a decrease in investment. The fate of the older neighborhoods is that they will become rundown and uninvestable. The older neighborhoods have just as much of a right to right -size their properties to be modern. All of the newer homes built in Newport Coast and Newport Beach are designed to be in line with todays society, which means newer families that want a kitchen that is larger than GO square feet, and room for a family to entertain themselves reasonably and comfortably. All mansionization will do is cause the fate of older neighborhoods to look mismatched, rundown and extremely undervalued in comparison to Newport Coast and Corona Del Mar. Please keep Newport Beach what it is, the epitome of great living for families of new and old that is clean, safe, shiny. We pay extra to live here because it isnt run down, unsafe and not falling apart. Please dont let a few owners that have extremly rundown, outdated and substandard dwellings limit investment into the City of Newport Beach, limit new tax dollars, limit cityjobs, limit safety and limit families to tiny kitchens, bathrooms and living space that was built for people in the 1950s and 60s and doesnt work for modern living where we spend more time at home. I love Newport Beach, the city employees are top notch and know what they are doing, please dont take away money from them and our city. This decision will be the ruin of Newport if implemented and the effects will limit every type of income that our city has and force investment outside of Newport with certainty. Kindest Regards, Daniel Hamm Newport Beach Resident Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Izzy Hirson <izzy@pathtoserenity.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 8:56 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Homes in Newport Beach Dear Sir/Madam My name is Izzy Hirson and I live in Belcourt at 8 Cheshire Ct. Recently we have been thinking of upgrading our home to a more modern looking (but trying to escape the box -like look). I see that there are homes in our neighboring cities who are changing the look of the front of their homes with clean lines without the box -like look. We are about to present you with the plans to upgrade the back of our house by putting in accordion doors to give us the "indoor/outdoor" living space. Although we have not drawn the plans for the front due to not knowing if Belcourt will remain looking the way it is or if the planning commission is considering allowing us to modernize the front of the houses which would also give us more security depending on the design. I look forward to hearing the decision after the 8th of this month. Many Thanks Izzy Hirson PATH TO SERENITY Izzy Hirson 949-289-0350 Path To Serenity www.Dathtoserenitv.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 & 164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, 1 Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Beverly Smetko <bsmetko@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 3:43 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Mansionization I want to give my opinion on the upcoming discussion about mega mansions being built in Shore Cliff and other areas. I think Ca is an overbearing state with too many restrictions, govt intrusion, and ridiculous rules. We all know the majority of people that live or relocate to coastal OC have to have money to afford to live and own a house here. Our real estate appreciation is because of the strong desire to live in coastal OC. It will be discriminatory to start restricting the size of homes being built, as the majority of neighborhoods already have mega mansions. If one can afford to build a mega mansion, and it is approved by the planning commission, why should they be restricted? I am for leniency in restrictions. The tax basis has to come from somewhere in a sanctuary state that allows anyone in, and we pay to take care of the masses. Thank you. Beverly Tillman Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: mwroosev <mwroosev@uci.edu> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 1:07 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Mansionization Dear Planning Commissioners, I understand that the issue of oversized homes on small lots is going to be reviewed, and I would like to stress again my concerns that the character of Corona del Mar is being destroyed by the height and the size of these properties. People are losing their ocean views, and the parking is becoming a nightmare, with multiple cars parked on the Flower streets. I recognize that people have a right to buy an older home and rebuild an improved home on the lot. However, the style and size should be considered when building permission is given, and requests for changes to the original plan should be denied, unless there is a valid reason for the request. There is a new building opposite Seaview, on Carnation, which has taken out the beautiful view that we all had of the channel and the boats. I wonder if anyone thought about this when permission was granted to build another oversized home. The charm of Corona del Mar has been the ocean views that we all enjoy when walking as residents, or visitors. These are disappearing with each new oversized home on the ocean side of the streets. Thank you. Mary Roosevelt 494) Virus -free. www.avast.com Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Valerie Hutcheson <valerie.hutcheson@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 12:56 PM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject: Re: Stop the Mansionization of Newport Beach Dear Commissioners, I am unable to attend the meeting planned for this Thursday, however I wanted to again register my concern regarding the allowances that are being made for these gigantic homes that we see happening all around us. My particular area of concern is Corona Del Mar, where I have resided for the last 19 years. I moved to CDM because of its unique village charm. I understand that with the high cost of land, people want to maximize the buildable area of the lot, but we must take a hard look at what our city is going to look like going forward if we do not control the zoning process. Thank you for your attention to this issue. > On Jan 15, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Valerie Hutcheson <valerie.hutcheson@gmail.com> wrote: > Please stop allowing the adjustment of setbacks in order to allow larger homes being built in CDM! > Thank you. Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 3:54 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Mansionization in Newport Beach Dear Planning Commissioners: Thank you for taking up the problem of mansionization in Newport Beach. I recognize that you are starting with Cliff Haven at their request, but hope that you will extend this discussion to involve the whole city. This has been a growing issue for some time and I believe that it has hit a tipping point for our communities. If you look at the letters regarding 2607 Ocean Blvd and 358 Dahlia, they reflect the frustration that residents feel with a process that allows ever increasing home sizes. Some of these homes are built within the standards of our zoning rules, but others ask for variances or exceptions that are not warranted except in the developer's opinion. Far too often, it seems that these requests are granted. While you are looking at the development standards in Cliff Haven, I would appreciate a conversation about the process of granting exceptions to the rules and wonder if a paradigm shift might be in order. May we protect the qualities and characteristics of our city that make Newport Beach a special place to live rather than allowing ever bigger, higher and more dense development? Just a thought to cogitate on as you consider the future of our city. Thank you, Susan Skinner Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Sheryl Brewer <flowerladycdm@gmaii.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 3:01 PM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: Susan Skinner Subject: to all planning commissioners regarding Mansionization in the city of newport dear sirs I have lived in CDM for 50 years. Required open space used to mean open ground. Height limitations used to be 24 ft high. That meant the top of the fireplace or roof line. The city fathers at the time did not want the city to become like Manhattan Beach and thats why these rules were in place. Unfortunately MONEY OBVIOUSLY TALKS and houses got bigger and taller as rules got manipulated time and time again. I myself have lost the right to light, as except for full summer, my home is now completely shaded. I no longer have breezes coming thru my windows and have lost the use of my fireplace as it no longer draws, ALL due to MANSIONS built next to me. Three stories were never possible, NOW they are everywhere. Also, due to a sloppy builder and an incompetent City, at the time the condos were built next to me, the proper precautions were not taken causing one side of my house to drop over 2 inches and costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair. All these new rules that keep changing because of what you do are destroying the original character and charm of this once wonderful city. Every new project wants a variance, or change in square footage or setbacks, which just makes homes bigger and bigger. PLEASE STOP THIS. DON'T CONTINUE TO DESTROY THIS COMMUNITY. DON'T LET THE GREED CONTINUE. THANK YOU. Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Martha Peyton <mpeyton112@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:39 PM To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; Ramirez, Brittany; info@lineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: Residential Development Standards Dear Commissioners, As you prepare to review development standards for Cliffhaven, I would like to encourage all of you to consider the intensifying community concern with the dimensions of new homes. I am a CDM homeowner living next door to a recently completed home that complies with current zoning. It is over -whelming. With the ongoing replacement of older homes, I believe it is time to establish an architectural review process incorporating community input that will prevent proliferation of such bulky homes. Sincerely, Martha Peyton Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: Elaine Linhoff <elinhoff@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:00 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: mansionization I live on the Peninsula Point. My neighbors and I are all appalled at the mans ionization that is chan ging the character of our neighborhood. Elaine Linhoff Ramirez, Brittany From: Nova, Makana Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 11:40 AM To: Ramirez, Brittany Cc: Campbell, Jim Subject: FW: Planning Commission meeting on mansionization Feb 8 For distribution to the Planning Commission for the February 8`h PC Agenda Ewco oa fMAKANA Community NOVA City Development Department o > Associate Planner mnova(&newoortbeachca.00v 949-644-3249 From: Jim Place [mailto:jimplace@sbcglobal.net] Sent: February 07, 2018 11:38 AM To: Nova, Makana <MNova@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission meeting on mansionization Feb 8 Dear Newport Beach Panning Commissioners: How many times does the planning commission need to hear that the voting citizens want a slow growth Newport Beach? You heard it when almost 14,000 signed a petition against the Museum House. We don't want large and high buildings any where in the city and this includes mansionization in one area which could expand to the balance of the city by any precedent set such as the item you are considering at your February 8 meeting. Frankly I feel that you are tone deaf and should resign. James Place 39 Anjou Newport Coast Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949na,gmail.com> Date: February 4, 2018 at 8:15:37 PM PST To: undisclosed -recipients:; Subject: Planning Commission meeting on mansionization Feb 8 Thank you for your recent letter regarding exceptions to the NB zoning code. Pd like to share with you a really interesting development in all of this: The next Planning Commission meeting on Thursday (2-8) will be devoted to discussing mansionization in our city. They will be focused more on the Cliff Haven area, but the staff report indicates that this is expected to be an issue for the whole city, so what they decide will impact us all. Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Will you please write another letter to the commissioners about stopping mansionization in general and consider coming to the meeting on Thursday? It starts at 6:30 PM at the City Hall (100 Civic Center drive) and the more people who write or come, the more likely that we can get control over this out of control process. Their Email address again is: planningcommissioners@newoort beachca.eov. Pass it on! Also, if you are interested, Line in the Sand is about to circulate another initiative to complement the Greenlight rules about traffic and density. This initiative would go on the Nov ballot and would lock in existing heights in our city and lower the maximum high rise height that new buildings can ask for. If you are interested in helping getting signatures for that, let me know! It could be 10 to 20 signatures from family and friends or sitting tables at markets, etc. Thank you, Susan Skinner Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Development Standards Discussion Ramirez, Brittany From: jskinnermd@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:04 PM To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Mansionization Dear Planning Commissioners, Thank you for scheduling a discussion of an issue that keeps coming up in our community -- mansionization. I remember attending a number of visioning sessions prior to the adoption of our 2006 General Plan and, even at that time, people were expressing concern about the oversized homes being built. Mansionization -- homes that don't seem to fit into the neighborhood and that change the character of Newport Beach. Areas, for example, like old Corona del Mar, Newport Heights, Balboa Island, the peninsula and more that contribute so much to the charm and appeal that is Newport. I urge you to take a good long look at all the projects that come to you from the Planning Department that have asked for exceptions, waivers, variances, changes in orientation, etc. Of great concern is the difference in interpretation of the rules and definitions as seen by the public in contrast to the City staff. This allows an applicant who is trying every which way to shoehorn a bigger project than normally would be allowed onto a property. I don't blame our City staff so much as I blame the system. This is the way I see it .... Applicants of some properties push hard to gain every inch they can in square footage. Planners apparently are asked to process all requests and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. When exceptions are requested, it appears that applicants and planners work together to see if the applicant can qualify for the requested exceptions. This is where different interpretations of the rules and definitions create a sticking point for the public. I would like for our City to get rid of any ambiguity and provide better definitions. I have a suggestion that might be a good starting point to address the problem. Why not spend some time to take a look at the rules and definitions in an informal open back and forth couple of sessions and listen to the concerns of both the public and City staff on the interpretations of specific items. For example, what determines a "special privilege" designation? Is it "whatever the City Council decides it is" as was recently heard from an assistant city attorney or can there be some specific criteria that must be met in order to quality as a special privilege? If words such as this are defined and agreed to by city and citizens, can you imagine how much nicer it would be for everyone? I'm sure you will have other ideas for resolving the disconnect between what the majority of citizens want and the people fighting for that last inch of buildable space. I urge you to do some brainstorming and find a way both city and citizen can be involved so everyone can agree with what the rules allow and then hope that all governing bodies will follow the rules. Having only 3 minutes to speak with no followup conversation is very unsatisfactory when trying to work out a solution for anything! Thank you for giving consideration to my thoughts and thanks also for being willing to serve our lovely community. Nancy Skinner 1 Planning Commission - February 8, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Residential Develop ent Sta dard Discussion -- Planning Commissioners, Re: February 8 Agenda item 4, Development �arc�s -- Mansionization became a crisis about 1980. The Corona del Mar Civic Association held a series of meetings to develop a consensus set of standards. Then with the help of the City, a twin survey was made of the property owners of record, and also of the registered voters of Corona del Mar. 21 % of the ballots were returned; much better than usual survey results. (Many owners were also voters; some refused to return both ballots, feeling that was "voting twice.") -- The proposed standards covered floor area, height, and restricting the height and placement of the second story. All were preferred over the existing standards by two to one among voters, and by FOUR TO THREE AMONG PROPERTY OWNERS (but not among owners in the R-3 district). -- If you are interested in details, many are available, such as the ballot, the explan- atory text and diagrams, the vote count by item by district by voters and by owners, the precautions to assure there was no stuffing the ballot box, etc. -- The outcome was that the Realtors and architects combined to fight the proposals,- in roposals;in the final showdown at the City Council they prevailed over the people. -- ... Some details of the consensus standards indicate "The Voice of the People:" -- Building height: 25 feet maximum, 21 feet average -- First floor height: 17 feet maximum, 13 feet average -- Buildable area: Area inside setbacks, less 40% of the excess over 1500 sq. ft. -- Examples:.... Area inside setbacks: 1500 2000 2500 3000 4500 6000 ............... Buildable area:..... 1500 1800 2100 2400 3300 4200 -- Floor area: 150% of the buildable area. -- Area of 2nd floor (the part over the first floor height limit): 60% of buildable area. -- Location of 2nd floor: Not in the front one third of the lot. -- Here is a taste of the ballot count, "Yes" for the consensus standards, "No" against. -- .........Height ..... Buildable ... Floor area ... 2nd area ....2nd location ........ Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No --Owners 175 151 175 149 200 132 200 127 178 155 -- Voters 354 185 357 191 382 170 384 162 367 183