Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmend Chapter 20.93 (PA2003-080)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5 November 6, 2003 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3231 cslaven @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2003 -003 — Amend Chapter 20.93 to revise the Modification Permit's standards of review. (PA2003- 080) ISSUE: Should the City amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise the Modification Permit's standards of review? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2003- 003 to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Introduction: During the April 22, 2003 City Council study session on the modification process, discussion centered on the question of whether too much latitude is given in the processing of modification permits. Some of the concerns expressed by Council members were that modification permits are slowly re- shaping the character of neighborhoods and that setbacks are sometimes reduced or eliminated without due regard to maintaining adequate public safety access. Some Council members believe these standards are being abused when applicants take advantage of the somewhat lenient nature of the modification permit requirements by requesting relief from the City's development regulations although no hardship exists. Following a discussion of the matter, the City Council then initiated a code amendment on June 24, 2003 directing staff to revise the required findings to incorporate three factors: 1) practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships; 2) neighborhood compatibility; and 3) public safety. With revisions being suggested for the required findings, staff believes several sections of the Chapter should also be modified accordingly. Revision to Required Findin As directed by the City Council, staff has proposed the following revised findings to address issues of physical hardship upon property, neighborhood compatibility and public safety. It is important to recognize the following findings are preliminary in nature and the exact wordings can be revised through the code amendment process. 1. Practical Difficulties and Unnecessary Hardships Finding: The granting of the application is necessary due to the physical constraints of the property, such as legal nonconforming structures, size, shape, topography or lot orientation, and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in unnecessary hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. 2. Neighborhood Comoatibilitv and Preservation Findin The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. 3. Public Safety Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Current Modification Permit Process /Findings: When the Zoning Code was first established and updated thereafter, a large number of properties within the older sections of the City became legally non - conforming by contempory development standards. The modification permit process was established in 1968 "for the purpose of passing upon requests for reasonable use of property not permissible under existing regulations." Modification permits were created to give the City a way to make "adjustments" from Zoning Code standards for the large number of non- conforming lots. The current required finding is generalized in that it only requires that the modification permit does not cause detriment to the surrounding neighborhood and to the general welfare of the City. The modification permit's standards of review can be revised to accomplish an efficient process without causing potential harm to future development within the City. If adopted, the standards of review would require a greater analysis of hardships upon property, neighborhood compatibility and public safety. As a beneficial consequence, it is staffs intention to afford the applicant an increased understanding of the City's procedures for processing a modification permit application. These revisions will be to the benefit of residents who are proposing to build a new home or a remodel to their existing home, as well as to the staff administering these code provisions. Code Amendment to Chapter 20.93 (PA2003 -080) November 6, 2003 Page 2 of 5 The intent of the draft required findings (Section 20.93.030) is consistent with the original intent of providing relief when the strict literal interpretation and enforcement of property development regulations would be inconsistent with the general purpose of Zoning Code. The first two findings are relatively innovative for the City s regulatory framework and would provide a fresh perspective to the standards of review. The last draft finding contains public health, safety and general welfare provisions that are similar to those required to approve a Variance or Use Permit. The practical difficulty finding addresses the Council's concern of abuse of the City's development standards pertaining to setback limitations and building design /configuration. With this finding, the applicant would be required to clearly demonstrate facts that create the need to deviate from the Code. Specifically, the applicant would need to show the modification is necessary due to physical limitations present on a particular property as opposed to simply wanting the modification to accommodate a particular design. The combination of requiring a practical difficulty and an unnecessary physical hardship on the property is intended to encourage applicants to design their projects to meet the established regulations within the Code as opposed to a design that may only be approved through a Modification Permit. For example, the lot size, shape or orientation relative to other lots may make the application of standard setbacks impractical. Another example may be where the height of a fence exceeds the maximum height for fences due to topography, i.e. grade changes between properties. This finding may have the effect of decreasing the number of applications as many past applications have not been based upon a physical constraint. The neighborhood compatibility finding is beneficial because it addresses the City Council's concern of neighborhood character preservation. The review of modification permits must be processed in a manner that recognizes and respects the unique features and characters of neighborhoods, thereby ensuring continued enjoyment of the City's quality of life. Moreover, compatibility is achieved when a new home or addition to an existing home is designed in a manner that blends in with the following general characteristics of the immediate neighborhood: Scale, bulk and home orientation of the surrounding residences; Front, side and rear yard setbacks; and A Existing streetscapes. The Modifications Committee will be only considering such characteristics as they relate to direct impact of the proposed modification on the neighborhood's character. This finding is not intended to deny an applicant development rights that a property owner would otherwise enjoy without the modification. For example if an owner of a single -story residence chooses to build a second floor in his or her single -story neighborhood and the development regulations allow for such a development; the requested modification permit could not be used to prohibit the construction of a second floor to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The public safety finding is valuable because it addresses the City Council's concern of modification permits creating impediments to safety personnel. Additionally, the finding is Code Amendment to Chapter 20.93 (PA2003 -080) November 6, 2003 Page 3 of 5 consistent with the existing modification permit's sole finding of ensuring a project does not cause harm to adjacent property. The three draft findings would place additional considerations within the standards of review for a project and provide clear criteria to the Modifications Committee and other bodies who have jurisdiction over the modification process. Together the findings will encourage applicants to design their projects to meet the established regulations within the Code as opposed to a design that may be approved through a Modification permit. Supplementary Revisions: The age and complexity of the City necessitates some form of administrative relief from the zoning regulations. The modification permit's purpose (Section 20.93.010) will be revised to clearly provide an administrative remedy to the development of property with a physical hardship. However, it must be clear that the proposal would not cause detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. This information should be in the introduction of the Modification Permit chapter to address the reasoning for maintaining the modification permit process as a viable option for applicants requiring, relief. Additionally, the Modification Committee's authority (Section 20.93.0156) should be revised to clarify their role in determining which findings are applicable to the proposed application. Re- adoption of 300 -foot Radius for Public Notification: According to Government California Code, Section 65091, the public notice radius for all properties must be within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the property; however the City of Newport Beach is a Charter City, thereby allowing the City to establish its own radius parameters for public noticing. The City Council has indicated a desire to change the public notice radius from its current 100 feet to an expanded 300 -foot radius to provide greater opportunity for public input. It should be noted that the required notice text in Chapter 20.93.025 currently reads 300 feet. This was an inadvertent change that occurred through the adoption of a series of minor amendments associated with the Subdivision Code update. Staff recognized this as a scrivener's error and continued to require a 100 -foot radius for public notices. With the proposed code amendment to the Modification Permit standards, the text will be re- adopted so that all future Modification Permits will utilize the 300 -foot radius standard when notifying the public. Conclusion: The proposed code amendment will address the City Council and staffs concern with the long term establishment and subsequent administration of lot - speck zoning. The revised required findings will aid in staffs administration of remedies while ensuring neighborhood compatibility and public safety. Furthermore, by unifying several of the Chapter's sections, the applicant will have clear criteria of whether their application would qualify for administrative relief. Code Amendment to Chapter 20.93 (PA2003 -080) November 6, 2003 Page 4 of 5 Environmental Review: The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and has been determined to be categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations. Minor alterations include variances and use permits on land with a slope of less than 20% that do not result in changes in land use or density. Public Notice: Public notice for the November 6, 2003 hearing was posted in the local Daily Pilot newspaper. Prepared by: Submitted by: It Chandra Slaven Patricia L. Temple Assistant Planner Planning Director Exhibits: 1. Resolution No. 2. Draft of revised Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) 3. Minutes from City Council study session April 22, 2003 4. Minutes from City Council hearing June 24, 2003 F:\USERS\PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2003 \PA2003- 080\August Stuff\2003- 080_PC2nd_version.doc Code Amendment to Chapter 20.93 (PA2003 -080) November 6, 2003 Page 5 of 5 I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -003 (PA 2003 -080) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The proposed code amendment is to Chapter 20.93 of Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission initiated this amendment on October 9, 2003. Section 2. A public hearing was held on October 9, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The modification permit process should be revised to provide administrative relief in cases where there is a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship that would preclude a reasonable use of property, the modification being requested is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the proposed modification would not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 2. The Modification Committee's authority (Section 20.93.0206) should be revised to emphasize the committee's role in determining if a modification permit is applicable to the proposed application. 3. The intent of the proposed revisions is consistent with the original intent of providing relief when the strict literal interpretation and enforcement of property development regulations would be inconsistent with the general purpose of Zoning Code. 4. The public notice radius should be expanded from the 100 -foot radius to a 300 - foot radius to provide greater opportunity for public input. 5. The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Code Amendment No. 2003 -003 to revise Chapter 20.93 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as provided in attached Exhibit 1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2003. BY: Earl McDaniel, Chairman 1 -1'il Michael Toerge, Secretary AYES: ABSENT: NOES: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 b EXHIBIT 2 DRAFT OF REVISED CHAPTER 20.93 (MODIFICATION PERMITS) 0 Sections: 20.93.010 20.93 20.93 20.93 20.93 20.93 20.93 20.93 20.93 20.93 Page 20.93 -1 Modification Permits CHAPTER 20.93 MODIFICATION PERMITS Modifications Committee Application for a Modification Permit Notice and Public Hearings Required Findings Duties of the Modifications Committee Conditions of Approval Effective Date Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation Amendments and New Applications Rights of Appeal and Review 20.93.010 Purpose 0924103 �D OWN OW UWA 0924103 �D Page 20.93 -2 Modification Permits 20.93.M Modifications Committee A. Composition. A Modifications Committee consisting of three members is hereby established for the purpose of passing upon requests for reasonable use of property not permissible under existing regulations. The Modifications Committee shall have authority to grant, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission under provisions of this code, modifications as provided herein. The Modifications Committee shall be composed of the following members or their designated representatives: 1. The Planning Director, who shall act as Chair 2. The Public Works Director 3. The Building Director The Modifications Committee shall include staff members assigned to aid the Modifications Committee as necessary. 1. a. Required building setbacks in front, side or rear yards; b. Heights of walls, hedges or fences; C. Distances between buildings; d. Area, number and height of signs not requiring an exception permit or limited by Planned Community District regulations; e. Roof signs and off -site signs in accordance with Chapter 20.67; f. Structural appurtenances or projections which encroach into front, side or rear yards; 09/24/03 Ik Page 20.93 -3 Modification Permits g. Location of accessory buildings on a site; the construction or installation of chimneys, vents, rooftop architectural features and solar equipment in excess of permitted height limits; h. Size or location of parking spaces or access to parking spaces; i. Swimming pool and swimming pool equipment encroachments; Roof parking of automobiles in nonresidential districts; k. Minor modifications and improvements to nonconforming buildings; a. Lot line adjustments, in accordance with Chapter 19.76 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code); b. Tentative parcel maps, in accordance with Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code); C. Condominium conversions involving four or less units, via approval of a tentative parcel map in accordance with Chapter 20.83 and Title 19 (Subdivision Code); and d. Such items as may be subsequently set forth by the Planning Commission resolution, subj ect to a confirming resolution by the City Council. The Modifications Committee shall also pass upon all re quests to extend existing use permits which have been approved by the Planning Commission and exercised by the applicant. C. Meetings. The Modifications Committee shall hold one or more regular meetings each month and may hold special meetings as necessary. 20.93.0 Application for a Modification Permit A. Procedure. An application for a modification permit shall be filed RIJINEW in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 20.90: Application Filing and Fees. B. Required Plans and Materials. An application for a modification permit shall be accompanied by the following: WNW ra Page 20.934 Modification Permits Plot plans showing all property lines, structures, parking, driveways, other major improvements or facilities and landscaped areas. 2. Elevations of all proposed structures. Other plans such as floor plans as may be required by the Planning Director to assure a proper consideration of the application. 4. In the case of a lot line adjustment, the materials described in Chapter 19.76 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code). In the case of a tentative parcel map, the map and other materials described in Title 19 (Subdivision Code). 20.93.M Notice and Public Hearing A. Tentative Parcel Mans. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Section, notice and hearing procedures for tentative parcel maps shall be as specified in Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code). 1.1 Time of Hearing. , in to tMs ehapteF, a time and plaee for a publie hearing shall be fixed, to be held not less C. Required Notice. 1. Mailed or Delivered Notice. a. Residential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearin , notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owners of property of the boundaries of the site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. b. Nonresidential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owners of property within 300 feet, excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways, of the boundaries of the site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and 09/24/03 1� Page 20.93 -5 Modification Permits provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. 2. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted in not less than 2 conspicuous places on or close to the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. C. Contents of Notice. The notice of public hearing shall contain: A description of the location of the project site and the purpose of the application; 2. A statement of the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing; 3. A reference to application materials on file for detailed information; 4. A statement that any interested person or authorized agent may appear and be heard. D. Continuance. Upon the date set for a public hearing before the Modifications Committee, the Modifications Committee may continue the hearing to another date without giving further notice thereof if the date of the continued hearing is announced in open meeting. 20.93A Required Findings 09124!03 ;A Page 20.93 -6 Modification Permits 20.93.0 Duties of the Modifications Committee A. Investigation . The Modifications Committee shall cause to be made, by its own members or its respective staffs, such investigation of facts bearing upon such application as will serve to provide all information necessary to assure that the action on each application is consistent with the intent of this section and sound planning practices. B. _Rendering of Decision. After the conclusion of the hearing on any application for a modification permit, the Modifications Committee shall render a decision within 15 days unless otherwise stipulated by the applicant and the Modifications Committee. C. Referral to Planning Commission. In the event the Modifications Committee determines that an application should properly be heard by the Planning Commission, it may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearing and original determination on the merits. The procedure for notice and hearings held by the Planning Commission on such applications shall be in accordance with the same provisions as set forth in this chapter. 09!24/03 Page 20.93 -7 Modification Permits D. Administrative Act. The granting of any modification permit, when conforming to the provisions of this code, is hereby declared to be an administrative function, the authority and responsibility for performing which is imposed upon the Modifications Committee. action thereon by the Modifications Committee or Planniag Direetee shall be construed as administrative acts performed for the purpose of assuring that the intent and purpose of this code shall apply in special cases, as provided in this section, and shall not be construed as amendments to the provisions of this code or the districting map of the City. 20.93.JM Conditions of Approval The Modifications Committee may impose such conditions in connection with the granting of a modification permit as they deem necessary to secure the purposes of this code and may require guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being or will be complied with. 20.93.fe Effective Date No permit or license shall be issued for any use or property modification until the decision shall have become final by reason of the expiration of time to make an appeal, which for purposes of modification permits shall be within 14 calendar days after the date of the Modifications Committee's decision. In the event an appeal is filed, the modification permit shall not become effective unless and until a decision is made by the Plannint? Commission on such appeal, 018M 20.93.10 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation A. Expiration. Any modification permit granted in accordance with the terms of this code shall expire within 24 months from the effective date of approval or at an alternative time specified as a condition of approval unless: A grading permit has been issued and grading has been substantially completed; or 2. A building permit has been issued and construction has commenced; or A certificate of occupancy has been issued; or 4. The use is established; or A time extension has been granted. 09/24/03 1U Page 20.93 -8 Modification Permits In cases where a coastal permit is required, the time period shall not begin until the effective date of approval of the coastal permit. B. Time Extension. The Planning Director may grant a time extension for a modification permit for a period or periods not to exceed 3 years. An application for a time extension shall be made in writing to the Planning Director no less than 30 days or more than 90 days prior to the expiration date. C. Violation of terms. Any modification permit granted in accordance with the terms of this code may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such modification permit are violated, or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. D. Discontinuance. A modification permit shall lapse if the exercise of rights granted by it is discontinued for 180 consecutive days. E. Revocation. Procedures for revocation shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.96: Enforcement. 20.93.0 Amendments and New Applications A. Amendments. A request for changes in conditions of approval of a modification permit, or a change to plans that would affect a condition of approval shall be treated as anew application. The Planning Director may waive the requirement for anew application if the changes are minor, do not involve substantial alterations or addition to the plan or the conditions of approval, and are consistent with the intent of the original approval. B. New Applications. If an application for a modification permit is disapproved, no new application for the same, or substantially the same, modification permit shall be filed within one year of the date of denial of the initial application unless the denial is made without prejudice. 20.93.0 Rights of Appeal and Review A. Rights of Appeal and Review. Decisions of the Modifications Committee may be appealed by any interested party to the Planning Commission. B. Calls for Review. The Planning Commission may review any decision of the Modifications Committee. C. Procedures. Procedures for appeals and calls for review shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals and Calls for Review. 09/24/03 `1 EXHIBIT 3 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES FROM APRIL 22, 2003 City Council Minutes Study Session April 22, 2003 Present: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols (arrived late), Mayor Bromberg Absent: None 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR — None. 2. MODIFICATION PERMIT STANDARDS OF REVIEW. City Manager Bludau indicated that the staff report tries to give Council a clear understanding of the duties, authorities, and regulations of the Modifications Committee. Planning Director Temple stated that the staff members who deal with the modification process on a daily basis hear a lot of the same comments Council hears about potentially excessive variations to development standards that could change the type and style of development in the City. She reported that the modifications process was incorporated into the zoning code in 1968 and they currently process about 153 permits a year. She added that the Modifications Committee also deals with items the Planning Commission previously discussed (i.e. parcel maps, lot line adjustments, and condominium conversions). She explained that a modification is the granting of minor relief from the strict provisions of the zoning code development standards in particular areas. She stated that the committee feels they do not have enough tools to effectively deal with the issues raised through the modification process. Ms. Temple reported that some communities allow minor variations or modifications which are within set numerical parameters of the code. She stated that staff feels that this approach may not be the best way to handle these issues since the City's zoning code is unique and not typical. Further, the City has adopted certain types of development regulations and a numerical limitation may not meet the former Council's intent when the modification process was established, and referenced the examples on page 3 of the staff report. Ms. Temple stated that the other approach is to look at what findings need to be made in order to approve a modification. She explained that the principal intent of this is to ensure that whatever is requested is not injurious to the neighborhood, so it often lies with the surrounding neighbors or Modifications Committee to prove that the request will be harmful. She stated that this could be hard to establish, particularly when there are differing opinions. Ms. Temple stated that a potential approach for Council would be to strengthen the findings needed to approve a modification. Mayor Bromberg indicated that he gets asked about the difference between a variance and a modification. Ms. Temple explained that, in order to approve a variance, the person needs to prove that there is something very unusual about the physical configuration of the property that is restricting the full enjoyment and use of the property. She stated that the variance standard in State planning law has a high bar for approval. She reported that the City's modification system allows an applicant to request a minor variation to a development standard. She clarified that the Modification Committee cannot approve exceeding height or floor area limits, but the applicant can ask for a relief from the development standards and would only have to say that the idea will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. Mr. l� Bludau indicated that there are a number of architects who design projects with modifications in mind already. Ms. Temple agreed and stated that this is allowed since they only need to make a finding of no detriment. Regarding mansionization, Mayor Bromberg asked what type of application is used for this. He stated that a lot of residents feel that the modifications process leads to homes that are much larger than they should be. Ms. Temple reported that the floor area or overall height of the building cannot be modified through a modification permit, but it does affect where the building is sited on the property and how it is viewed by surrounding properties, regardless if the building is bigger. She stated that a modification permit is a discretionary permit and can be appealed to the Planning Commission and then to Council. Council Member Webb stated that a lot of modification requests are related to reducing setbacks. He believed that those types of modifications should be either eliminated or minimized as much as possible, unless they use the same findings as variances to try to justify the setbacks. He noted that safety personnel need a certain amount of space to access a property. Ms. Temple clarified that a modification is not needed for those types of encroachments. Council Member Webb believed that, due to the lack of ability to gain access for first aid purposes, the City should look at changing the zoning code so there is a clear area. He indicated that he does not have a problem with architectural features in the upper areas going into the setbacks. He noted that, when there are existing nonconforming uses that are in setback areas, the Modifications Committee looks at extending those uses because they already existed; however, new building should not be allowed the same uses in the setback areas. He stated that he would like the City to be really strict on setback areas. Council Member Webb noted that there are a lot of narrow alleys that are 10 feet wide, but if backyard encroachments are allowed it is almost impossible to get in and out of garages. Council Member Heffernan stated that, in the Port Streets, families are parking their SUVs partially on the sidewalks because of their front yard setbacks. He indicated that, because a few people have setbacks like this, others think they are entitled to it. He asked if neighbors are given notice about modification considerations. Ms. Temple indicated that the modification process provides a 100 foot radius notice, but believed that it should have the same radius as every other permit. Council Member Heffernan expressed concern that this is changing the setbacks in the City because the justification becomes that the Modifications Committee cannot deny a property since it already approved surrounding setback changes. He added that this changes the setback rules through the modification process instead of doing it in a formal manner. Council Member Adams asked what the extent is for front yard setback reductions in the Port Streets. Ms. Temple reported that the Port Street setbacks are different from house to house. She stated that the Public Works standard minimum driveway clearing from the back of the sidewalk is 18 feet, and indicated that the City may want to took at some of those standards to help the committee establish what the minimums should be. Council Member Nichols stated that there are a lot of substandard lots in Corona del Mar and noted that, when the property owner had the lot line adjustment done, they knew that the lot was substandard. He believed that the City should not allow overgrowth on substandard lots. Ms. Temple explained that a lot line adjustment is not a modification and they do not approve any lot line adjustments or subdivisions in areas like Corona del Mar that are less than 30 feet wide. Council Member Nichols requested clarification about end lots that reverse its direction. Ms. Temple stated that reorganizing lots to front on a different street than originally subdivided was done in the 1920s and 1930s without receiving any approval from the City. She indicated that the City cannot force property owners to reorient their lot. She stated that lot line adjustments are sometimes requested to reorganize a couple of lots into a more usable configuration. In these cases, there is almost always a setback issue. N Council Member Nichols stated that he also has concerns about basements being taller than 7 feet and having false ceilings and floors. Ms. Temple stated that this issue is not dealt with in the modification process. Council Member Nichols expressed concern about people having open space on the first floor to be able to build a third floor as long as they do not exceed the height limit. Ms. Temple stated that this is a code issue. Elaine Linhoff stated that she noticed that most modifications are approved. She expressed concern that this means that staff is setting policy. Council Member Proctor stated that staff is not setting policy but normally has to make findings. However, staff's hands are somewhat tied since the burden of proof shifts to the applicant in this process. He asked what other communities do about these issues. Ms. Temple believed that the City is more relaxed about what needs to be proven to approve the variations. She stated that many communities have similar processes, but most need more rigorous findings in order to make their approval. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that other communities probably had a process similar to the City's years ago, but over time they have tightened the findings. Public Works Director Badum noted that the Public Works Department is in support of reviewing the modification permit program because staff gets frustrated with the one finding as it makes it difficult to make good decisions when there is not a lot of guidance. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway believed that the modifications process is not broken and emphasized that people cannot increase their floor area ratio or height limit under the modification procedure. He agreed that the noticing radius should be expanded to 300 feet. He explained that the City is an old beach city which adopted a zoning code years ago and has legal nonconforming uses almost in every area. He stated that the burden of proof has changed and suggested that Council Member Webb discuss his concerns with the Fire Department. He referenced page 5 of the staff report and noted that it was suggested that using practical difficulty guidelines, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of the zoning code be used while maintaining reasonable use of property. He believed that, as the City tinkers with this, it should invite every engineer and architect to provide comments. He noted that, once this gets into a discretionary process, the workload for the Planning Commission and Council will increase. Mayor Bromberg believed that there is room for improvement. He agreed with the wording on page 5 and the 300 foot radius notification. He suggested that staff bring something back to Council. Council Member Webb noted that page 5 states that more strict findings could result in fewer modification requests and more houses designed to meet code requirements. He added that the City should consider adopting the first variance requirement for setback modifications. �1 EXHIBIT 4 CITY COUNCIL HEARING MINUTES FROM JUNE 24, 2003 City Council Minutes June 24, 2003 32. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION — AMEND CHAPTER 20.93 (MODIFICATION PERMITS) TO REFLECT CITY COUNCIL GUIDANCE [PA2003 -080]. Planning Director Temple stated that the current standard used by the City for modification permits is to find that there is no detriment to the neighborhood. She stated that most communities have begun requiring that applicants show justification as to why a deviation from the development standards is necessary for their project. Planning Director Temple stated that this information combined with the City Council's direction at the Study Session of April 22, 2003, staff is recommending that the City consider three replacement findings for the modification permit process. She stated that these are listed in the staff report. Planning Director Temple stated that staff has found that architects are designing projects not necessarily to comply with code, but to comply with what they feel the Modification Committee will approve. As a result, the City is seeing many new homes built with requested modifications. She stated that it should be required that practical difficulties be found with the property that cause the need for a variation or deviation from the development standard. She added that staff would work on the language to make sure it could be applied in a fair manner. Planning Director Temple stated that it is also recommended to change the modification notification radius from 100 feet to 300 feet. Council Member Heffernan asked what determines if a matter is heard by the Modification Committee or the Planning Commission. Planning Director Temple stated that a previous staff report listed the items that can be dealt with by the Modification Committee. She noted that these are also listed in the code. Briefly, she stated that the items include heights of fences, setback encroachments and certain types of architectural features. Council Member Heffernan confirmed that it is not a discretionary matter and that the action before the City Council is not to change the list, but to change the findings used by the Modification Committee in making their determinations. Council Member Adams asked how the change would be enacted. Planning Director Temple stated that the item would come back to the City Council as a code amendment. Council Member Adams asked if staff had enough direction to prepare the amendment or if Planning Commission input would be sought. Planning Director Temple suggested that staff could prepare a resolution of intention to initiate the code amendment and then hold public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Council Member Adams expressed his concern for the change to neighborhood compatibility. Mayor Bromberg agreed and noted that the Modification Committee would be relied on to determine what is compatible for a particular neighborhood. Council Member Adams stated that he was more concerned about the process that will be used to develop the appropriate language. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that if the City Council has some concern about the neighborhood compatibility finding, direction can be given to staff and the Planning Commission to give particular attention to the language and the City Council can review this language when the action is before them. Motion by Council Member Adams to adopt Resolution No. 2003 -31 initiating an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to amend Chapter 20.93 to revise the Modification Committee's required findings to re -adopt the 300 -foot public notice radius. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Nichols Q. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — None.